[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
H.R. 883
TO PRESERVE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER PUBLIC LANDS AND
ACQUIRED LANDS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND TO PRESERVE STATE
SOVEREIGNTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN NON-FEDERAL LANDS
SURROUNDING THOSE PUBLIC LANDS AND ACQUIRED LANDS. ``AMERICAN LAND
SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT''
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 18, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC AND MAY 1, 1999, ROLLA, MISSOURI
__________
Serial No. 106-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-427 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 18, 1999...................................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Kimble, Melinda L., Acting Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC........................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Kirkpatrick, Hon. Jeane J., American Enterprise Institute,
Washington, DC............................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Additional material submitted by......................... 67
Lindsey, Stephen G., Elgin, Arizona.......................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
MacLeod, Laurel, Director of Legislation and Public Policy,
Concerned Women for America, Washington, DC................ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 118
Rabkin, Jeremy A., Associate Professor, Department of
Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York........... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 72
Additional material submitted by......................... 102
Letters from Ms. Raidl, Mr. Arnett, Mr. Carruthers, Mr.
Milne, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Leshy....................... 90
Train, Russell E., World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC,
additional material submitted by....................... 113
von Droste, Bernd, Director, World Heritage Center,
additional material submitted by....................... 116
Rovig, David B., President, Greystar Resources Ltd.,
Billings, Montana.......................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Smith, Ann Webster, Chairman Emeritus, U.S. Committee of the
International Council on Monuments and Sites, Washington,
DC......................................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Yeager, Brooks B., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC............................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Additional material supplied:
Biodiversity Treaty, People for the USA...................... 47
Briefing Paper, The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. 346
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage, Message from The President of the
United States.............................................. 76
Frampton, Hon. George T., Jr., United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, additional material
submitted by............................................... 115
Hearing held May 1, 1999......................................... 127
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 127
Prepared statement of.................................... 129
Emerson, Hon. Joann, additional material submitted by........ 210
Statement of Witnesses:
Alford, Scott................................................ 344
Barnes, Carl, Missouri Forest Products Association and People
for the USA, Potosi, Missouri.............................. 327
Prepared statement of.................................... 329
Benton, Wanda, Salem, Missouri............................... 130
Prepared statement of.................................... 133
Bright, David................................................ 341
Burks, Connie, Jasper, Arkansas.............................. 146
Prepared statement of.................................... 149
Additional material submitted by......................... 363
Cooke, Joe................................................... 339
Prepared statement of.................................... 339
Denham, Mary, Director and State Coordinator, Take Back
Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas........................... 223
Prepared statement of.................................... 225
Additional material submitted by......................... 382
Floyd, Frank................................................. 343
Hardecke, Ron, Citizens for Private Property Rights,
Owensville, Missouri....................................... 193
Prepared statement of.................................... 196
Hicks, Ray................................................... 342
Jud, Bill.................................................... 340
Kreisler, Leon, Missouri Farm Bureau, Salem, Missouri........ 324
Prepared statement of.................................... 325
Lovett, Dale, Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council,
Wickliffe, Kentucky........................................ 296
Prepared statement of.................................... 299
Meyers, Frank, Forester and Secretary, Potosi Chapter, People
for the USA................................................ 289
Prepared statement of.................................... 290
Powell, John, Frank B. Powell Lumber Company, Rolla, Missouri 214
Prepared statement of.................................... 215
Skiles, Darrell, Missouri Cattlemen's Association, Salem,
Missouri................................................... 307
Prepared statement of.................................... 309
Simpson, Bobby, Dent County Commissioner, Salem, Missouri.... 177
Prepared statement of.................................... 180
Yancey, Richard J., President, Viburnum Chapter, People for
the USA, Black, Missouri................................... 216
Prepared statement of.................................... 218
Welch, Marge................................................. 341
Williams, Junior............................................. 344
Additional material supplied:
Sierra Club, Letter dated April 27,.......................... 361
Text of H.R. 883............................................. 349
HEARING ON H.R. 883, TO PRESERVE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES
OVER PUBLIC LANDS AND ACQUIRED LANDS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND TO
PRESERVE STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN NON-FEDERAL
LANDS SURROUNDING THOSE PUBLIC LANDS AND ACQUIRED LANDS. ``AMERICAN
LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT''
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Helen Chenoweth
[acting chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee will please come to order.
I want to welcome our witnesses, this very distinguished
panel. We have two panels of very distinguished witnesses and
we are all looking forward to hearing from these witnesses.
Today we hear testimony on H.R. 883, which gives the
Congress a role in approving international land designations,
primarily United Nations' World Heritage Sites and Biosphere
Reserves. H.R. 883 now has more than 145 cosponsors.
So that everyone understands, my concern is that the United
States Congress, and therefore the people of the United States,
have been left out of the domestic process to designate
Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites. H.R. 883 makes the
Congress and the people of this country relevant in this
process.
The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a
single U.S. law or even an international treaty, and that is
wrong. Executive branch appointees cannot, and should not, do
things that the law does not authorize. In fact, both Biosphere
Reserves and World Heritage Sites programs are administered
through the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization, commonly referred to as UNESCO. However,
the United States withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 because the
Reagan Administration found it riddled with gross financial
mismanagement. Fifteen years later, even the Clinton
Administration has not rejoined UNESCO. As a result, it defies
the imagination as to why our government is still participating
in these UNESCO programs.
We, as the Congress, have a responsibility to ensure that
the representatives of the people are engaged on these
important international land designations. Now I do not think
that Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution advises that in
governing our lands that we simply opt out of policies that may
appear ineffectual. But instead, it expressly requires that we,
the Congress, make all needful rules and regulations regarding
land, as if to suggest that we are to jealously guard against
the slightest possibility that foreign entities have any power
over what belongs under the strict purview of the United States
of America.
Yet, these international land designations have been
created with virtually no congressional oversight, no hearings,
and no congressional authority. The public and the local
governments are rarely consulted. Until now, no one has lifted
an eyebrow to examine how the U.S. domestic implementation of
these programs has eaten away at the power and the sovereignty
of the Congress to exercise its Constitutional power to make
the laws that govern what goes on in the public lands.
Today, we will begin to look at these very issues. We
intend to move this legislation from the Committee to the House
floor for a vote very soon.
With that, it is time to begin. I once again want to
welcome all of our witnesses who will testify today. I would
like to introduce our first panel. First, we have the Honorable
Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Ambassador to the United Nations,
she's now with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington,
DC; joining her is Ms. Melinda Kimble, Acting Assistant
Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs, located here in Washington; Mr. Brooks
Yeager, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington; and Dr.
Jeremy Rabkin, Associate Professor, Department of Government,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Mr. Vento. Madam Chair, I have an opening statement.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Vento, I apologize. We would like to
hear from the Minority.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, this is not new legislation. The
Congress first considered it in 1996 and 1997. In both
instances the other body, the Senate refused to consider the
measure on the floor and the Administration indicated it would
veto the measure if passed.
This measure is misguided because it aims at the symbols of
Federal policy when what the supporters are legislatively
really opposing is the underlying policy itself. While some of
my colleagues and I might like to see us doing even more, this
country has set a national policy goal of the long-term
preservation of environmental resources. The commitment this
Nation has made to the preservation, conservation, restoration
policies of land sometimes demand that certain activities which
threaten these resources be prohibited and/or tightly limited.
The reality of the situation is that no U.N. commando team will
penetrate U.S. borders to seize control of our most precious
parks, all in the name of conservation. Besides, many are
promising today that we will soon have a crack missile defense
system to thwart any and all attempts to seize the sovereignty
of our great Nation out from under our control.
Any and all land use restrictions in place are a function
of U.S. law, not an international treaty or protocol. Our
participation in the World Heritage Convention, the RAMSAR
Convention, the Man and the Biosphere Program, as an example,
are emblematic of an underlying policy and a symbolic value and
importance the U.S. places on its natural resources, our
natural legacy. These international cooperative agreements are
an extension of our own domestic policy. They do not dictate
it; they flow from such policy and law. These sites we have
nominated under the World Heritage Convention are listed
because Congress chose to enact policy and law to protect them
and establish special land managers to regulate and enforce
such law.
To address a specific example that gave rise to this bill,
the problem with the New World Mine was that it was, in fact,
too close to Yellowstone National Park, not that it was too
close to a World Heritage Site. If we want to debate the basic
principles in environmental protection, that's fine. But we
should not waste our time passing legislation that seeks to
abolish the programs that grew out of these basic tenets.
We have evolved over 200 years an American land-use ethic
in case law. This is particularly true because the decision to
abandon these programs has consequences. And let's be clear,
the goal of this measure is to abandon these programs, not
simply to regulate them. To require Congress to act for each
and every parcel of land to be considered is to effectively
stop all future nominations and designations.
The legislation sends a signal around the world that our
Nation, the United States of America, which forged the policy
path to institute these various treaties and protocols, is
undercutting the values and benefits of international
recognition for important cultural or environmental sites. It
sends a signal that the United States is undercutting and
abandoning values for ecosystem research coordinated through
the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program.
At the same time, when the United States is thrust into a
role of dominant power and in the central role as a world
leader in so many areas, why would we voluntarily abdicate
perhaps the most important leadership position we occupy, that
of a leader in an effort to make this life on this planet
sustainable? This would convey to the hundreds, in fact, a
hundred and sixty-some nations who are members of the World
Heritage Convention Program, it would convey to these nations
who are participants of the conservation treaties and protocols
that special interest, domestic political and parochial
considerations come first in the United States. If the United
States cannot even permit recognition to be accorded, why
should the other nations bother to participate?
Finally, it is particularly troubling that we are pursuing
this misdirected and misguided policy based on gross
misinformation. Each agreement covered by this bill states on
its face that it contains no provision that affects in any way
the authority or ability of participating nations to control
the lands within its borders. These programs give the U.N. no
more control over land of this country than the awarding of
Gold Medals gives the U.S. Olympic Committee control over an
American athlete. To claim that these international programs
somehow infringe on the sovereignty of this Nation is simply
factually inaccurate.
This is not all that is inconsistent about H.R. 883. While
this legislation is similar to the measure introduced last
Congress, it differs from the version that passed the House in
one important respect. During floor debate, 242 of our Members
of Congress supported an amendment that I offered which would
require specific congressional authorization for any
international agreement seeking to make U.S. land available for
commercial use as well. A majority of our colleagues felt that
if you're going to reassert our role in governing the use of
these lands for conservation purposes, we should be consistent
and reassert congressional oversight of international
agreements which cover commercial exploit of uses of U.S. lands
as well.
How can we stand by and let important conservation programs
be thrown by the wayside for superfluous reasons and then
permit foreign companies to haul away precious and valuable
resources rightfully owned by the American taxpayers who
receive practically nothing in return? The House clearly
asserted that sentiment last Congress and most certainly would
hopefully do the same in this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, programs like this are good programs. They do
not flow from the U.N. The argument is pervasive only to those
who have creative and overactive imaginations. Rather, these
programs are being targeted because they do play a role in
highlighting instances where we, as Congress and as a Nation,
fall short in meeting the very goals and values that the U.S.
espouses and that these international agreements represent.
Madam Chairman, this is an issue of takings, not of private
property but of stripping international recognition from the
esteem and from the United States citizens of the world. The
reaction to this symbolic program of conversation is ironic
when, in fact, we look to the next century. The United States
should be joining with the family of nations leading the
advancement of knowledge and working to implement such know-how
into a host of environmental agreements, some with teeth and
enforcement mechanisms, because of the health, the welfare, and
to benefit Spaceship Earth and the people.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Vento.
The Chair recognizes the real Chairman, Mr. Young. Do you
have an opening statement, sir?
Mr. Young. I beg to differ with the good Chairperson, she
is the Chairman today. And I do thank you for participating in
this; I have a series of hearings.
I am very pleased to see the panel is here and look forward
to their testimony, and we look forward to the passage of this
legislation again, as we did last year.
I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Under Rule 4(g), we like to limit time for our witnesses to
five minutes. And also I do want to state that if any other
members have any opening statements, under unanimous consent,
they will be entered into the record.
Mr. Vento. Madam Chair, a point of inquiry. I don't have
the testimony from the distinguished former Ambassador, Ms.
Kirkpatrick, nor the disclosure statement. Is there some reason
for that? Doesn't the Rules of the House provide at least for
the disclosure statement and the advanced copies of this
testimony?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Vento, the testimony came in a little
bit late. But we would be happy to provide as soon as we can
copies of the information.
Mr. Vento. Do I have it? I am not aware of it being in my
portfolio and I am asking about it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is noted for the record.
So without any other questions, we will proceed with our
first witness. Mrs. Kirkpatrick, we look forward to hearing
from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you very much, and I thank you for
inviting me. I am pleased to be here to make some general
remarks based principally on my experience in the United
Nations and reading and reflection on it since.
What I would like to do is make some general comments
concerning the practices, the patterns of the U.N. organization
and some of their impacts on the operation of programs.
Specifically, I would quote Paul Johnson, who has said that the
1970s could perhaps be termed as the ``Decade of
collectivism,'' particularly for the United Nations, because
there was a great explosion of collectivist initiatives in the
1970s, nowhere as much as the United Nations where a whole
series of new orders and conventions were adopted and
undertaken, including the 1972 Convention on the Protection of
World Cultural and Natural Heritage, but also the 1974 new
international economic order, and a half dozen other
initiatives in the 1970s establishing global organizations in a
U.N. framework to undertake some new activity which had never
been undertaken before, not just by the United Nations but, in
most cases, by anyone.
And the thrust of these conventions was regulatory, for the
most part, and it was in most cases an effort to establish a
louder voice on the part of larger numbers of countries in the
establishment of policies in a very wide range of spheres. A
characteristic of the new organizations was the practice of
making decisions on the basis of what in the United Nations is
considered the General Assembly Principle, which is the basis
of one country, one vote. The governing body of most of these
organizations is chosen ultimately in a U.N. arena which
permits the decision-making on the basis of one country, one
vote. The problem with the one country, one vote principle is,
of course, that the United States' vote counts exactly as much
as St. Christopher, Nevis, or Barbados, or Germany equally with
Guinea, or Britain with the Bahamas, or whomever. When
decisions are made on the basis of one country, one vote, there
is very little account taken of interest in the decision or
technological competence or capacity to, in fact, implement
decisions made.
The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural
and Natural Heritage provides such a pattern of decision-
making. Those decisions are made by delegates to the World
Heritage Committee and the Biosphere Program International
Coordinating Council. They choose the International
Coordinating Council which is chosen by a UNESCO assembly which
itself operates on the basis of one country, one vote.
I might in parenthesis simply say that I was representing
the United States in the United Nation and the U.S.
representation in the U.N. during the period that the decision
was made to withdraw U.S. participation in UNESCO. I would like
to say just a word about this. It was a decision that was made
not easily and not rapidly. It was proposed early in the Reagan
Administration and a commitment was solicited from my cabinet
colleagues by me, I might say, and received that they would not
withhold U.S. support from UNESCO or membership in UNESCO until
and unless we had made our very best effort at reform of the
really egregious abuses which characterized the UNESCO
governance system. And for more than two years, three years the
Reagan Administration, in cooperation with all parts of the
U.S. Government, made an effort to correct some of the fraud,
waste, and mismanagement which virtually everyone who looked at
the problem agreed existed.
Having failed, we decided reluctantly that it was really
necessary to withhold U.S. participation and withdraw U.S.
membership from UNESCO. And I would reiterate what the Chairman
has pointed to; that is, no subsequent Administration has
deemed it desirable to rejoin UNESCO. It is a poorly managed
organization. Most of its decisions and most of its domains are
made on the basis of one country, one vote and there is a very
great deal of fraud and mismanagement. I think some improvement
has been made but not dramatic. The World Heritage Sites and
designations are no different than many other aspects of
UNESCO; namely, they are not managed in a way that provides for
systematic representation of countries involved.
I would just like to mention one more general point
concerning U.N. operations. All U.N. decisions are made either
on the basis of some special selection of countries because of
interest or competence or on the basis of one country, one
vote. The General Assembly is, of course, one country, one
vote, and the Security Council provides for weighting of votes.
The Convention Concerning Protection of World Cultural and
Natural Heritage provides simply for decisions ultimately on
the basis of one country, one vote, in which no special
attention is paid or account taken of the investments, or the
concerns, or the effects on Americans of any particular
decision by the World Heritage Sites.
I personally have been disturbed by the fact that there is
no voice for elected officials, no voice for the American
people in these processes. And I believe personally that the
United States should not participate in U.N. activities,
whether it be the Law of the Sea, or the Chemical Weapons
Conventions, or World Cultural and Natural Heritage Programs,
where decisions are made on the basis of one country, one vote,
where our great involvement is not matched by some commensurate
voice in decisions affecting our properties and our interests.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kirkpatrick may be found at
the end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I
will have to say that I am sure that all of my colleagues up
here and thousands of people wish that we could just sit down
and talk to you by the hour and listen and learn from you. It
is a great honor to have you here at the Committee.
And now the Chair recognizes Ms. Melinda Kimble for her
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MELINDA L. KIMBLE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Kimble. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman and
members of the Committee, I welcome this opportunity to comment
on H.R. 883, and I respectfully request that the full text of
my written statement be included in the record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection.
Ms. Kimble. H.R. 883 directly affects implementation of the
World Heritage Convention, the U.S. Man and the Biosphere
Program, and the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands. These
conventions and initiatives have been long-standing components
of the United States' international and environmental
diplomacy.
The United States agrees that the public and the Congress
should participate in an open, transparent, and participatory
nomination process for World Heritage Sites, Biosphere
Reserves, and RAMSAR sites. The Administration believes,
however, that this legislation goes too far in addressing
concerns about the implementation of these long-standing
international agreements and programs.
This bill would take what is currently a bottom-up
grassroots approach and impose a cumbersome top-down approval
process. The United States was the principal architect of the
World Heritage Convention and the first country to ratify it.
This convention respects the sovereignty of countries on whose
territory World Heritage Sites are located. It makes clear that
the responsibility for identifying and delineating such sites
rests with the national governments that are party to the
convention.
The Man and the Biosphere Program, or MAB, is a voluntary
and cooperative science program which promotes the study of the
interaction of Earth's human and natural systems. In Kentucky's
biosphere reserve at Mammoth Cave National Park, local
authorities work together to protect the area's water quality.
In the Everglades biosphere reserve, policy-makers and
scientists have produced strategies for restoring this vast
ecosystem while preserving the area's social and economic
structures.
Nominations for the U.S. biosphere reserves are prepared by
locally established committees interested in pursuing the
designation. They obtain letters of concurrence from local and
State government representatives and landowner approval for all
included properties.
H.R. 883 appears to be based on a belief that the World
Heritage Convention and the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program
threaten U.S. sovereignty, mandate land-use regimes, and
restrict the rights of private property owners. Rather, the
main purpose of both is to recognize sites of exceptional
ecological, scientific, or cultural importance. Neither
regulates the management of these sites or affects the land-use
rights of the country in which they may be located.
We also have concerns about Section 5 of H.R. 883, which
restricts international agreements generally with respect to
the nomination or designation of Federal lands for conservation
purposes. This section could hamper the ability of local
communities to gain recognition of a specific wetland site in
their area as a Wetland of International Importance under the
RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands. Such a listing affects neither
the management regime for these areas nor resource use within
them.
This convention exists because of a global concern over the
loss of wetlands and the migratory birds that depend on these
habitats. At the local level, RAMSAR designations promote
greater public awareness of wetland values and the need to
protect them. The network of RAMSAR sites in Canada, the United
States, and Mexico provide safe breeding and wintering grounds
for waterfowl. These birds, in turn, generate significant
economic activity in the United States through hunting, tourism
to these sites, and bird-watching.
We believe that U.S. participation in the World Heritage
Convention, U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, and the RAMSAR
Convention on Wetlands serves important national interests and
helps link national and international initiatives with local
stakeholders. U.S. leadership and influence in these
conventions and programs encourages other nations to similarly
value and care for significant sites in their countries.
The Department of State opposes H.R. 883. If it were to
pass, the Secretary of State would recommend a veto.
Recognition of a U.S. site as a World Heritage Site, a
Biosphere Reserve, or a RAMSAR site in no way undermines our
sovereignty. Such recognition also does not impose additional
Federal land-use restrictions over such areas or adjacent
areas. We believe this legislation runs counter to the U.S.
role in supporting both local and global environmental
cooperation and could greatly impede the nomination of new
sites under these conventions and programs.
This concludes my statement, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimble may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ms. Kimble.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brooks Yeager for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF BROOKS B. YEAGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Yeager. Thank you, Madam Chairman. If I may be allowed
to summarize my statement and have the full statement included
for the written record of the Committee.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection.
Mr. Yeager. Before I start, I would like to say on a
personal note how genuinely glad I am to see Representatives
Tom and Mark Udall in this room which Mark's father and Tom's
uncle for so long was a wonderful chairman of this Committee.
So, it is really a great pleasure.
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views
of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 883, the American
Land Sovereignty Protection Act. The chief effect of this
legislation in our view, Madam Chairman, would be to place
cumbersome and unwise restrictions on U.S. participation in the
World Heritage Convention and other international conservation
agreements.
Ironically, these agreements in many cases were the product
of U.S. world conservation leadership and have been supported
by Presidents of both parties going back to President Nixon.
Through them, the United States has been successful in engaging
many other nations in the world effort to establish and protect
national parks and to better conserve unique and important
natural and cultural resources.
The restrictions on participation and the burdensome
requirements of H.R. 883 appear to be a response to worries
that these agreements in some way diminish U.S. sovereignty
over our own parks and refuges and public lands. But in our
view, nothing could be further from the truth. Because the
restrictions of H.R. 883 are unnecessary, and would unwisely
weaken the worldwide conservation leadership and influence that
the United States has earned, we must strongly oppose the bill.
If this legislation were to pass, the Secretary of the Interior
would join the Secretary of State in recommending a veto.
Madam Chairman, with your permission, I would like to
introduce some documents for the Committee record. The
documents show the long, 30 year history of enthusiastic and
nonpartisan support for these agreements, particularly for the
World Heritage Convention. They also show an equally long
bipartisan consensus that U.S. involvement in World Heritage
and other such international conservation conventions poses no
threat to U.S. sovereignty.
In particular, I would like to start, Madam Chairman, with
the message from the President of the United States on November
23, 1972, introducing the World Heritage Conservation
Convention to Congress, in which President Nixon said ``The
Convention places basic reliance on the resources and efforts
of the States within whose territory these natural and cultural
sites are located, but, at the same time, would provide a means
of assisting States which have insufficient resources or
expertise in the protection of areas for the benefit of all
mankind.''
In particular, in the letter of submittal from the
Secretary of State at the time, it notes that the U.S. actually
moved to strengthen drafts of the convention during the
negotiations during the early 1970s to have a convention that
would match the U.S. desire at the time for world conservation
to move forward with U.S. leadership and influence.
The second document I would like to introduce for the
record, Madam Chairman, is a letter from Secretary of Interior
William Clark, dated April 1984, to Secretary of State George
Schultz, and this addresses the point that was raised by
Ambassador Kirkpatrick about our disassociation at the time
from UNESCO. In fact, we did disassociate from UNESCO and I
have no basis to second-guess Ambassador Kirkpatrick's judgment
as to why that was and believe that's the case. But at the same
time, it was the considered policy of the Reagan Administration
at the time to retain our affiliation with the World Heritage
Convention.
In fact, this letter speaks exactly to that point. It says
the Convention is identified as a clear U.S. initiative, the
concept having first been raised in President Nixon's 1971
environmental message. ``This country's close identification
with the program was emphasized by our having deposited the
first instrument of ratification and by six years of Executive
leadership through U.S. membership on and chairmanship of the
World Heritage Committee.'' The rest of the letter goes on to
explain why, despite the fact that we had disassociated from
UNESCO, we should stay in the World Heritage Convention.
The third letter that I would like to introduce is also
from the Reagan Administration. It is a letter from Ray Arnet
when he was director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, in which
Mr. Arnet explains why it is important in the context of the
World Heritage Convention for the World Heritage Committee to
have some responsibilities to oversee the integrity of World
Heritage Sites. It explains clearly that it is U.S. policy that
once a site is nominated that there should be an effort to try
to retain the values for which the site was nominated.
I have a press release from Secretary Hodel when he was
Secretary, also during the Reagan Administration, indicating
how proud the department was at the time that the Statue of
Liberty could be recognized as a World Heritage Site so that
that would be the official recognition that ``she is the most
widely recognized symbol of freedom and hope around the
world.''
Mr. Vento. I ask that these letters be made part of the
record, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered. But he is
not through yet.
Mr. Yeager. Right. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have two
other documents, one from the Governor of New Mexico Gary
Carruthers explaining why he is very happy that the Taos Pueblo
was nominated for a World Heritage Site, and one from our
Solicitor John Leshy explaining why, in very clear terms, he
believes that there is absolutely no infringement on U.S.
sovereignty in the course of the designation or administration
of World Heritage Sites in the United States.
I guess reading those documents took me a little more time
than I thought it would. My time is almost up. I would just
like to say, Madam Chairman, I think there has been a very long
history of nonpartisan support for these conventions. And as
Melinda Kimble made clear, the U.S. through these conventions
has, in effect, marketed the idea of the national park and of
the better preservation of cultural and natural heritage
throughout the world. I know that when the Secretary of
Interior and I were in South Africa together, just two months
ago, people in Cape Town were enormously overjoyed at the
thought that they might be able to have the Cape National Park
be brought into the World Heritage system, because for them it
was an indication of the pride that they have in their local
heritage and the fact that their local heritage really is of a
unique stature that deserves world recognition.
That is what these designations are about. That is what
these agreements are about. I think it would be unfortunate to
hobble them with unnecessary requirements. In fact, Congress
has had an important role; it ratified the agreement for World
Heritage, it enacted the legislation that told us how to
administer the World Heritage program, and we follow that
legislation very carefully. We do consult Congress when we
nominate sites. I think there may be room for improvement in
those areas, but we don't think there is any need to bog down
the programs and to vitiate their purpose for the United
States. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yeager and accompanying
documents may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Yeager. There was a total of
eight documents that you presented, wasn't there?
Mr. Yeager. I'm sorry, I'll count them, Madam Chairman.
Seven but one of them is a letter in response. I have the whole
packet here for you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Okay. Thank you very much. They will be
entered into the record, without objection.
And now the Chair recognizes Dr. Jeremy Rabkin for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY A. RABKIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT
OF GOVERNMENT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK
Dr. Rabkin. Thank you. I just want to begin by replying to
some things that have already been said. Congressman Vento
started off by saying that this bill that we're talking about
today is just symbolic, it is a symbolic gesture that is not
really going to the heart of things. And we have heard that
from both my co-panelists from the Clinton Administration that
the objections of people who are concerned about American
sovereignty are just about symbolism and all of them insist
there is no threat to American sovereignty here. If you get
past the symbolism, there is no threat to American sovereignty.
But then when they go on to explain why we need to keep the
World Heritage Convention intact and they talk about other
countries, they say this would undermine U.S. leadership, this
would undermine the influence of this convention. And it seems
that for other countries it is not just symbolic. It seems that
for other countries their sovereignty is not something to be
absolutely relied on. It seems that we expect we will be able
to influence other people but we won't be influenced.
Now I actually think it is a plausible argument that this
finally has no influence on anybody who doesn't want to be
influenced. There is no ultimate sanction here except removing
something from a list and if you want to shrug that off, you
can. On the other hand, if we are going to take this seriously,
we have to assume that it means something to be removed from
the list, that countries are intimidated by that, they are
embarrassed by the bad publicity. So I think it is reasonable
to say, yes, it does mean something and we should worry about
how this, if you want to call it symbolism, bad publicity,
embarrassment is wielded against us. I think that is a
minimally responsible thing.
Let me add one other thing that is not in my testimony but
I think is a point worth making here. My guess is that if you
look over the history of this, it is certainly my impression
from reading past minutes, this does exert influence, this
system the World Heritage Convention system, it does exert
influence on the ``nice'' countries, on the Western countries,
on the developed countries. And it exerts influence on them
because they have local NGOs or local political opponents who
say, ``Oh, oh, we got in trouble. Look, we were condemned. This
is serious. This is important. We have to do something about
it.'' If you have local people to work with, then UNESCO or the
World Heritage Committee can have some influence.
I will quickly proceed to tell you a story about Australia
where I think this is exactly what happened. And I think that
is more or less what happened in Yellowstone. The countries
where it is most important for us to exert influence, it seems
to me, are less developed countries and less democratic
countries, and I think for those countries the World Heritage
Convention means about as much as the Convention on Civil and
Political Rights. China signed that human rights convention and
within the past year has been arresting everyone who mentions
it in public in China. It similarly has signed the World
Heritage Convention and I wouldn't give two cents for the
amount of influence or leverage you are going to have on China
because it is basically a dictatorship and they will silence
people who try to talk about this convention, and the World
Heritage Committee knows that. And, anyway, it is basically
connected with UNESCO and, as Ambassador Kirkpatrick said,
UNESCO is a very corrupt, very politicized organization.
So I think probably when you get down to this, it can only
be used effectively against Western countries, which means it
is more likely to be used against us than it is likely to be
used in a useful way against countries that we would like to
encourage to improve their protection of natural and historic
sites.
Let me quickly tell you this story about Australia and then
draw some morals from it. Within the past year, there has been
a big dispute in Australia about one of their sites, the Kakadu
National Park which is in the Northern Territories in
Australia. It has been listed as a World Heritage Site since
the early 1980s. All of that time they have set aside certain
areas adjoining the park for mining. There has been a mine
operating there now for almost twenty years and there hasn't
been any complaint about it. Another parcel of land which was
set aside for mining, they have over the last few years studied
whether it would be all right to have mining go on there. And
the Australian government, after two-and-a-half years of
extensive, careful review, more or less analogous to our
environmental impact studies, decided, yes, you can go ahead
and do mining there.
Opponents of the mine then appealed to the World Heritage
Committee. It was a very political process. You had opposition
members of parliament writing to the committee. You had people
involved in the Green Party in Australia appealing to Green
Party members in Europe--particularly, the German Foreign
Minister, who now is from the Green Party, and they
also found allies in France--and they got European countries to
express an interest in this. They got the European parliament
to say this was wrong. And then, of course, they got the World
Heritage Committee to say, yes, this is wrong and we are going
to say that your park is in danger.
Now the Australian government said, look, this is our park.
We are sovereign--they said all the things that Congressman
Vento and my colleagues here have said you are allowed to say--
this is our decision. And the World Heritage Committee told
them, no, you are wrong, you better not do this. And they have
these domestic opponents of the mine saying, ``Oh, look, we are
in trouble now. We have violated international law. We are
going to be an international outlaw. We will become a pariah.
This is terrible.'' And the government is in a considerable
bind. That I think is the kind of thing we have to worry about.
Let me just draw three quick morals. First, I think there
is a Constitutional question here about whether we can get into
treaties that have nothing to do with international exchange. I
think you might be able to defend the World Heritage Convention
if you focus on the exchange of tourists. But you want to be
careful to say what is it really that this is about, what is
being focused on. And in the Australian case, the World
Heritage Committee said this will have a negative impact on
local aboriginal people in the Northern Territories. So you
have this international committee coming in and saying what we
are really protecting is the relations of the Australian
government with its own people. If that is what this is about,
I question whether the United States can constitutionally
participate.
Second, I think there is a question, okay, we could commit
ourselves to a treaty text but can we go from a treaty text to
regulations and interpretations made by an international
committee under that treaty. And I think there is serious
constitutional doubts about that. But that is what has happened
here. The issue in Australia, as in Yellowstone, was not
actually the site but areas adjoining the site. How do areas
adjoining the site become subject to the World Heritage
Convention? The answer is the Committee has decided on its own
that that is what should happen; there should be a buffer zone
and they added that to the treaty. Can we sign not only a
treaty but have with the treaty a blank check to an
administrative body to expand the reach and meaning of the
treaty?
And finally, if we can make, which I think we can, certain
kinds of submissions to the International Court of Justice or
to arbitration panels of the WTO where it is understood to be a
judicial or quasi-judicial procedure, can we really do that
with just the same constitutional integrity if we are making a
submission to what is basically a world political body, almost
a sort of quasi-legislature, which is what really the World
Heritage Committee has made itself into.
One last point. I would just like to disagree slightly with
what Jeane Kirkpatrick said, of course, I agree with the
substance of what she said, but she kept saying it is one
country, one vote under the World Heritage Convention. It is
worse than that. There are more than one hundred countries that
have signed, but when it comes to making these rules and making
these determinations they don't all of them vote one country,
one vote. There is a very elite list of twenty-one countries
represented on the committee. We have usually been on that
committee but there is no reason to expect that we will always
be on that committee. So we could be condemned by a forum in
which we not only are just one of many, but we might not even
be one. We might not be represented at all on this committee
and still we are giving to this committee the power to condemn
us and to help opponents of some policy here mobilize
opposition.
That is not the way our government is supposed to work. You
cannot talk about grassroots activity here. We have an elected
Congress. They are supposed to make decisions, not some
coalition of NGO activists and international sponsors in other
countries meeting in Geneva or Kyoto or somewhere else. We
ought to be able to decide for ourselves what we think is
proper in our own territory, and I think this bill will help us
to do that. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rabkin may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Dr. Rabkin, for your testimony.
Now we will open the hearing up to questions from the
members.
The Chair recognizes Mrs. Cubin.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I was busy passing
out Girl Scout cookies to the staff up here.
I really appreciated the testimony of the panel. I want you
to know I gave up complaining for Lent. Next year, I am going
to give up smoking for Lent. I haven't smoked in twenty-one
years and I think I will be much more successful at that. So I
don't want you to think that the remarks that I am making and
the questions I am asking are complaining. But I have to talk a
little bit about what happened in Yellowstone, since I
represent Wyoming.
I truly appreciate Dr. Rabkin's comments. I also don't
understand how what happened in Wyoming reflects that it was a
grassroots effort that came in and declared that Yellowstone
was a site in danger. The New World Mine had been in the
process of completing an Environmental Impact Statement for
three years. The information that was coming out indicated that
the mine developed outside of Yellowstone would, in fact, did
not damage Yellowstone. I was not in favor of developing that
mine, don't get me wrong, but I am in favor of following the
process that has been established for the Environmental Impact
Statement and the process that has been established to enforce
the laws of the United States of America.
So three years this goes on and they were ready to make
their report. UNESCO came in and in three days, without even
seeing all of the documentation and the studies that had been
put forward for the EIS, three days later they determined that
this was a Heritage area in danger.
I can't see how in any way that is a grassroots effort. And
I absolutely agree that the political pressure that is brought
to bear just by virtue of the fact that publicity comes
forward, oh, my goodness, Yellowstone is now in danger, totally
disregarding the facts, the watershed that would have supplied
the New World Mine did not even go to Yellowstone; it went in
an entirely different direction. So I just agree with
Ambassador Kirkpatrick that we have to have people from the
United States representing our own best interests.
Would you respond, Dr. Rabkin, on the things that happened
in Yellowstone and comment on that for me.
Dr. Rabkin. Well, I agree with everything that you said. I
think that was a very troubling episode. And it is troubling
because, contrary to what the defenders of the existing system
are saying, this was very intrusive. You brought in an
international inspection team to say you are handling this in
the wrong way, you in the United States should not be doing
this, you should be doing something else, otherwise we will
condemn you by declaring your site in danger.
And you see the potential for mischief here in the fact
that American Executive officials basically were in cahoots
with this international organ----
Mrs. Cubin. Right. They were invited in by the BLM.
Dr. Rabkin. They paid for it, they facilitated it, and then
they went to the meeting of the World Heritage Committee and
said we don't object if you say that Yellowstone is in danger.
So what you are basically doing is, in some cases, supplying an
international megaphone to a mid-level executive bureaucrat.
Mr. Frampton is a fine fellow and everything but he shouldn't
on his own be able to make decisions.
Mrs. Cubin. Right.
Dr. Rabkin. And we gave him a global megaphone to say the
world has said that this mine is wrong. That's not how we are
supposed to make decisions in this country.
Mrs. Cubin. What I perceive my job as being is preserving
the process that is established by law.
Dr. Rabkin. Yes.
Mrs. Cubin. The outcome is beyond my expertise--I am a
chemist--it is beyond my expertise and beyond actually my
judgement about it other than as a citizen. Because when the
scientists come forward and say these are the facts and this is
what should be done, then we have to respect that these are the
facts or that they are not the facts. And what happened here
was the total process was interrupted and the process was not
allowed to go on. Frankly, I don't under----
Dr. Rabkin. Could I just add one thing?
Mrs. Cubin. Please?
Dr. Rabkin. When there is a dispute about an environmental
review in this country, you have all kinds of safeguards which
the Congress has legislated. You have judicial review, you have
due process requirements so that people can say, wait a minute,
this is junk science, this is not a fair review, this was done
improperly, and you can appeal and you can have an
authoritative judgement saying no, that was not properly done,
do it over again. There is, of course, nothing like that at the
international level, which is why a number of these reviews,
and people say this about the Australian case as well, are not
only slipshod, but they are utterly partisan and tendentious.
People basically go in there with a preconceived notion of what
is wrong and then write up a report saying, yes, it really is
wrong.
And that kind of thing you have no recourse for. There are
no international courts that you can complain to, there is no
international congress to complain to. You have just basically
turned loose these international busybodies who do their own
intriguing, and that is not a process.
Mrs. Cubin. And the entire process was interrupted before
it was allowed to go to completion and before, like you said,
the scoping hearings were allowed to occur. It was truly an
intrusion on the laws of the United States of America.
Mr. Yeager. Madam Chairman, may I be given a chance to
respond to this question since it involves activities of the
Department of the Interior?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Yeager, we are in the questioning
process right now. I am sure Mr. Vento will be asking you about
it.
So the Chair recognizes Mr. Vento.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As far as I know, you
are here to testify on the constitutional basis. Mr. Rabkin,
are you aware of any constitutional decisions that have been
made that these events violate the Constitution? Do you have a
yes or no answer?
Dr. Rabkin. They haven't been litigated, so no.
Mr. Vento. There is none. None.
Dr. Rabkin. Not yet.
Mr. Vento. Ms. Kirkpatrick, are you aware of any
designations that have gone on in which a nation did not want
the designation?
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Yes. I am aware of processes having been
set underway without the nation involved desiring a
designation. Let me just say, the issue is the process. It is
the question of representation and responsibility and
accountability----
Dr. Rabkin. Israel. Israel was condemned----
Mr. Vento. Mr. Rabkin, I didn't ask----
Dr. Rabkin. Israel was condemned as well.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Exactly. Jerusalem was designated against
the desire of the State of Israel, absolutely.
Mr. Vento. It is one of the RAMSAR. It is a site in danger
that----
Ms. Kirkpatrick. No, but it has been designated a World
Heritage Site against the desire and against the opposition of
the State of Israel.
Mr. Vento. Excuse me, Ms. Kirkpatrick. I think it was a
candidate site. In fact, most of them themselves nominate these
particular sites.
Now in terms of the Yellowstone case, Mr. Yeager wanted to
join in and say something. I invite him to do so at this point.
But in fact, that was after the fact. It doesn't make any
difference how it became a Man and the Biosphere or World
Heritage Site, this is an incident or something that occurred
after the site. As far as I know, the Department of Interior
used its authorities that it has under law and granted by this
Congress to accomplish the end, didn't it, Mr. Yeager?
Mr. Yeager. Yes, that is correct, Representative Vento. I
wanted to try to correct the record, although there was quite a
long exchange about the Yellowstone situation. But I was
involved at some levels in that discussion inside the
Administration over time and have some personal knowledge of
the facts. It is my belief that the visit of the World Heritage
inspection group had absolutely no significance whatsoever for
any of the decisions that were made with regard to Yellowstone.
The Park Service was, in fact, a participating agency in
the Yellowstone EIS and the Park Service believed then and
believes now that the New World Mine would have caused damage
to Yellowstone National Park. In fact, one of the drainages
from the mine does drain directly into Miller Creek which
drains into the Park. And there was considerable technical
information to that effect even in the course of developing the
EIS.
Representative Cubin is correct, the EIS was never
finished, but that was not the result of the intervention of
the World Heritage Committee, it was the result of a decision
by the President. It was a decision that the President is quite
proud of, that the Secretary of Interior supports, and that we
all believe was made correctly according to U.S. law and that
resulted in the protection of the park.
Mr. Vento. The authorities exercised did not flow from the
Man and the Biosphere or the World Heritage Convention or the
RAMSAR Treaty?
Mr. Yeager. No, they did not.
Mr. Vento. They flowed from power that this Congress has
conveyed and bestowed upon the land management agencies in the
Department of Interior specifically.
Mr. Yeager. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Vento. Ms. Kimble, can you tell us what the effect of
the State Department--what clear agreements, other than RAMSAR,
might be affected by a blanket prohibition contained in this
bill? What would be the affect on these conventions, treaties,
and protocols?
Ms. Kimble. I think you have to look at conventions in
force. I think we have looked particularly at this bill which
gets to land-use issues as primarily affecting the RAMSAR
Wetlands Convention. We don't have other major conventions
outside of World Heritage itself that deal with land-use right
now.
Mr. Vento. So would this bring to a stop any type of
designation of these types of sites in North America? Don't we
have treaty obligations under the Migratory Bird Treaty and so
forth?
Ms. Kimble. Well, let me say, the Migratory Bird Treaty is
a very important treaty, but I see RAMSAR as most important in
terms of encouraging the protection of wetlands globally and
certainly in the Hemisphere. It is not only the United States
that has obligations to protect its wetlands. Our obligations
are consistent with RAMSAR but are based on Federal law under
the Clean Water Act. But other States have made their
obligations consistent with RAMSAR under their legislation.
This means RAMSAR encourages Mexico and Canada, for instance,
to also protect these sites.
So the real strength of RAMSAR is promoting international
cooperation on wetlands protection. Obviously, we believe the
United States should be an active participant. Although you
will note that when we ratified RAMSAR we believed that our
existing legislation was sufficient to implement it.
Mr. Vento. Yes. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, during the 1980s
when we withdrew from UNESCO, did you protest? Were you of a
different opinion at that time with the then Reagan
Administration authorities with regards to continued
participation in World Heritage and Man and the Biosphere and
the other programs?
Ms. Kirkpatrick. No. Let me just say that the
implementation of these programs is--my point, I didn't make it
very clearly--it is a direct consequence of the political
forces inside the United Nations bodies at that time. The fact
is that the United Nations is a highly political institution,
just like the U.S. Congress is, and it is supposed to be. But
it was not functioning in a way that demonstrated such
undesirable political consequences.
Mr. Vento. We set aside these programs and stayed in them.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. That's right. No, no, because they were
not objectionable. They were functioning adequately at that
time.
Mr. Vento. But do you think that we ought to at this point
abandon this particular type of role, as has been implied here
by the other witness on the panel, Dr. Rabkin, do you think we
ought to abandon participation in these particular programs?
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Do I believe the United States should
withdraw from participation in these programs?
Mr. Vento. Yes.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. I have never suggested it. I do believe,
however, that the Congress has both an obligation and a
responsibility to participate in decisions that affect American
citizens and property.
Mr. Vento. But the point is there is no constitutional
challenge to the fact that the Congress has given authority to
the State Department and others to, in fact, do this. There is
no constitutional question here in your mind, is there?
Ms. Kirkpatrick. There are constitutional questions in my
mind concerning the implementation of some of these powers.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank the gentleman for your questions.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield to the woman
from Wyoming.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Pombo.
I would like to respond to Mr. Yeager. The outcome is
exactly what I wanted it to be. What I am absolutely opposed to
is how I think the process was violated. And let me tell you
how that was violated. The Administration had a desired outcome
and what they did when they invited UNESCO in was it was a
part, and a big part, but it was only a part of getting the
desired outcome. Now, if I am satisfied that the ends justify
the means, then that is okay with me. But I am not. My job, and
I think all of our jobs, is to protect the process.
And while this Administration may like the outcome that
they got this time, when another administration with an
entirely different philosophy about the environment and about
these issues comes into play, if we allow this sort of thing to
continue, then they are not going to like the outcome the next
time and neither are you. And that was the point that I was
trying to make.
Mr. Pombo. Reclaiming my time. To follow up somewhat on the
point that Mrs. Cubin was making, Ms. Kimble, can you clarify
for me what authority exists under these programs? What can
they do?
Ms. Kimble. Let me say, these programs are designed to
promote international cooperation and to recognize sites that
have specific ecological, cultural, or scientific value.
Congressional authority was certainly given for the World
Heritage Convention when the Senate gave advice and consent and
the Congress subsequently passed implementing legislation.
Mr. Pombo. No. What authority is under these agreements?
What can they do? Do they have land-use authority?
Ms. Kimble. The only thing they can do is put sites on a
registry. In the case of the World Heritage Convention, sites
that are nominated by states party to the convention go on a
registry as World Heritage Sites and the World Heritage
Committee, which the United States has continued to participate
in as a member since we left UNESCO, continues to review the
operation of these sites.
I just checked, for instance, to see how many sites are
listed in other countries. Many, many more developing country
sites have been listed than developed country sites, in part
because developing countries do not have the capacity to
protect their sites. And many of these listings of the World
Heritage Convention saying these sites were in danger prompted
action by the world community, including technical assistance
and aid, to help these countries protect their sites.
Other sites have been brought to the attention of the World
Heritage Committee. For instance, I was familiar with a case
when I was working in international organizations when
Dubrovnik in Yugoslavia was listed as a site in danger because
of the ongoing war in the former Yugoslavia.
So what this committee does is it identifies places of
significant importance under terms of the World Heritage
Convention, the World Heritage Convention continues to monitor
these sites and report on them. And it is truly an issue of
peer pressure and support, but it is cast truly in most cases
in a very positive light encouraging countries to protect these
sites. The purpose of the World Heritage Convention, as the
Nixon Administration saw it, was to promote protection, and
that I think was a constructive objective.
Mr. Pombo. Under the scenario that you describe of what
they are able to do, it is somewhat confusing because some of
the victories that are claimed under these sites, all of the
wonderful things that they do, in your testimony and in other
people's testimony, the claim is made that these are totally
voluntary; they have no regulatory authority, they have no
ability to tell anybody what to do.
At the same time, in quoting from your prepared statement,
you say it ``played a key role in the effort to restore the
Coho salmon to areas of northern California through the Golden
Gate Biosphere Reserve Program.'' If they have no regulatory
authority, no ability to tell us what to do, if they do not
threaten our sovereignty, there is no ability to do anything,
yet they claim helping to recover an endangered species.
Ms. Kimble. Let me make a very clear distinction, if I
could. First of all, Man and the Biosphere and the Biosphere
Reserve Program is a United States program that operates in
connection with the broader UNESCO program. The purpose of that
program is voluntary scientific cooperation. In the case of the
Coho salmon, designating the area as a Biosphere Reserve
promoted more active engagement in scientific studies in
programs to help restore the salmon population in that area.
Mr. Pombo. More active than what?
Ms. Kimble. The action was taken by individual----
Mr. Pombo. Excuse me, it is my time. More active than what
currently exists under NMFS, and Fish and Wildlife, and the
Sport Fishing Association, and all of the different
organizations that are involved in trying to recover the Coho
salmon? This has been a major ongoing deal in Northern
California, one that I am painfully aware of.
Ms. Kimble. Let me say, as I understand----
Mr. Pombo. To come in here and claim credit for----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will the gentleman hold, please?
Mr. Pombo. I do have further questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I know you do.
Ms. Kimble, will you please let Mr. Pombo finish his
statement.
Mr. Pombo. My time has expired. I do have other questions
for the witnesses and I will wait until everybody has had the
opportunity to ask their first round of questions. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Inslee for questions.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Rabkin, I have been listening with interest to your
discussion of the constitutional question you have raised. I
want to tell you there are folks who on occasion come here to
Congress and they make arguments that certain things are
unconstitutional. It is really great theater, it is really
great propaganda, it really does a lot of things to inflame
people, to make them think that legitimate treaties that have
been confirmed by the United States Senate somehow are going to
end up with black helicopters coming across the border in
Canada. I want to tell you that when leaders talk about that it
does inflame people's passions and it does make them actually
believe that the black helicopters are coming across the
border.
I want to tell you that frequently there are people who
come here and argue that certain things are unconstitutional
knowing that they have never ever gone through the legitimate
means that are established to challenge the constitutionality
of an Act or a treaty adopted by Congress and yet come in here
and argue for weeks and months and years that certain things
are unconstitutional back to their constituents when they have
never tested that issue in the courts of this country.
Now my understanding is, and your answer to Mr. Vento's
question, that neither you nor anyone else has asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of this issue.
If that is true, I want you to tell me if you are one of those
folks who come here and argue the constitutionality of statutes
and never actually go through the means of testing that issue
in the courts of this land?
Dr. Rabkin. The Supreme Court of the United States does not
give advisory opinions. You cannot show up and say I would like
some advice. You have to have an actual case or controversy. I
have in other contexts argued that people are much, much too
promiscuous in going into the courts and trying to make
everything into a Federal case. It would be very difficult to
mount a Federal case about this because you would have to show
that somebody was directly coerced by it.
Mr. Inslee. This has been on the books, one of these bills,
since 1973, the other one has been here since sometime during
the Reagan Administration. Are you telling me that our system
of justice is so incompetent and impotent that it prevents
American citizens from ruling the constitutionality of this? Is
that what you are telling this Committee?
Dr. Rabkin. I would not put it that way. But if you look at
treaties generally, you will see there are hardly any cases
about treaties because it is very difficult directly to
challenge the treaty.
Mr. Inslee. Have you made any effort to challenge these
treaties in the courts of our land?
Dr. Rabkin. I personally have not.
Mr. Inslee. Do you know anybody who has come forward from
the Yellowstone incident that people are complaining about, or
any of these instances and said this is a terrible affront to
the constitutional process of this country, it has got to be
ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Have you done that? Has
anybody done that? Or do they instead just come to the Congress
and bleat and whine about this year after year and never test
this issue. Is that what has happened here?
Dr. Rabkin. I do really think you are misunderstanding. You
cannot, just because you have an argument or a view or a
principle, get it into court. There has to be an actual case
where you can show that someone was directly coerced, and I
don't think that has happened yet.
Mr. Inslee. Apparently no one has even tried to have a
judicial interpretation of this issue. Is that an accurate
statement to your knowledge?
Dr. Rabkin. I think that is accurate.
Mr. Inslee. But it is accurate that people have come month
after month, year after year to this Congress and made that
argument, yourself included. Is that accurate?
Dr. Rabkin. Oh, I don't know if it was month after month.
But people have made that argument, sure.
Mr. Inslee. So isn't it true that you are in the wrong
place. You ought to be in the judicial system to get an
interpretation of this, don't you think?
Dr. Rabkin. I totally disagree with you, sir. I think it is
very important for the Congress of the United States to uphold
the Constitution and not shrug its shoulders and say, oh, well,
go to court. You have taken an oath yourself, sir, to uphold
the Constitution. You should take that oath seriously. You
should not berate citizens when they come to you and ask you to
honor that oath.
Mr. Inslee. I appreciate your reminding me of the oath that
I have taken and have fulfilled hour by hour, day by day to the
last dog dies, and I will do that. But it is a serious issue. I
just want to tell you it is troublesome to me because we get
this in other context, just not in the Resources Committee,
where people raise constitutional issues. And when I say why
don't we get a ruling on this, we have a branch of government
that can give us an answer to this, for some reason they are
very reluctant to ever do that. And I will tell you why they
are reluctant. Because they know the Supreme Court would rule
these are constitutional. That is why the U.S. Senate has
confirmed them. Thank you, Mr. Rabkin.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Inslee.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Tancredo.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Yeager, what is your relationship--you mentioned
earlier that you had some personal involvement with and
understanding of the issues revolving around the Yellowstone
Park issue. If you could help me out here and just tell me,
what is your relationship, for instance, to the National Park
Superintendent, Mr. Finley? Do you know him?
Mr. Yeager. I do know him, yes.
Mr. Tancredo. In what capacity are you aware of his work?
Mr. Yeager. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
and International Affairs. Among the offices that report to me
is an office called the Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance. When we have the responsibility to comment or to
participate in NEPA work, work under the Environmental Policy
Act, assessments or impact statements that are done by other
agencies, that office helps to coordinate the bureau's
responses and to make sure that our responses are consistent
and does necessary technical work with the bureaus.
So in that capacity, among others, I was asked to look into
this issue. There was quite a long technical discussion that
involved all the agencies about the mine. I can tell you that
that technical discussion was extensive, got into great detail
about elements of the EIS, was participated in by people, among
others, the water quality staff of the Park Service in Denver,
the Bureau of Reclamation dam experts, and others who had
technical expertise on issues raised in the EIS.
Mr. Tancredo. Would you consider Mr. Finley to have that
kind of technical expertise? Would he have been a participant
at any point along the line in any of the discussions? Would he
have been made aware of the technical aspects of it?
Mr. Yeager. I assume as the Superintendent he was made
aware. But he was not actually a participant in the
discussions, no. The discussions were held largely by technical
people.
Mr. Tancredo. But you feel, to the extent that you are able
to, and I recognize that there is some separation between your
responsibility and his that might not allow you to have a
definitive knowledge here, but you feel comfortable that he
would have had a good working knowledge of the World Heritage
Sites?
Mr. Yeager. I honestly can't testify to his knowledge. I
view him as a competent Park Superintendent.
Mr. Tancredo. Let me ask you to make an assumption given
his responsibilities as a National Park Superintendent. Would
you think he would have had at least a working knowledge of the
World Heritage Sites provisions?
Mr. Yeager. My assumption is that he would have had a
working knowledge of all issues affecting his park.
Mr. Tancredo. Then how would you have responded to the
following quote by Mr. Finley as appeared in the Casper Star
Tribune, September 9, 1995, a copy of which I have here. ``As
ratified by Congress, the provisions of the World Heritage
Treaty have the force and statutory authority of Federal law.
By inviting the committee to visit the park and assess the
mine's potential impacts, the Interior Department acted as it
was legally required to do.''
Mr. Yeager. What is the question?
Mr. Tancredo. How would you respond to that? Would you say
that is an accurate statement?
Mr. Yeager. I probably would not. You would have to read it
again for me to respond.
Mr. Tancredo. Let me do that. How about if I just gave
you----
Mr. Yeager. Representative Tancredo, maybe it would be
better for me to read to you how our solicitor has interpreted
our responsibility to the World Heritage----
Mr. Tancredo. I am really interested in your opinion of it.
Mr. Yeager. I understand that you value my opinion. But I
think there are those in the government whose job it is to make
legal interpretations and I generally try to follow them, and
our solicitor is one of those people. Neither Mike Finley, the
superintendent, nor I are asked to render legal opinions about
the position of the United States----
Mr. Tancredo. He did, of course, do exactly that here, he
rendered a legal opinion.
Mr. Yeager. Well, with your permission, if you ask for my
personal response, I would ask the solicitor. And here is what
the solicitor says. ``As a party to the World Heritage
Convention, the United States has undertaken to take the
appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative, and
financial measures necessary for the identification,
protection, conservation, presentation, and rehabilitation of
natural and cultural heritage features designated in U.S.
territory. In our view, this obligation is discharged entirely
within the framework of the appropriate U.S. and State laws.
Therefore, the World Heritage Committee's recent decision to
name the Yellowstone National Park to the World Heritage List
of Sites in Danger does not impinge in any way on the United
States sovereignty and does not supplant the----
Mr. Tancredo. That is really not the question I asked you.
You are responding to a question I did not ask.
[Simultaneous conversation.]
Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Yeager, you are responding to a question
I did not ask.
Mr. Yeager. I would like to finish----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Excuse me, will the gentlemen hold, please.
The Congressman has the time and he is controlling the time. I
would appreciate your respecting that. Thank you.
Mr. Tancredo. I will simply end my time, and I know we are
running out of time here, but I guess it is my observation here
that apparently it is not just some wayward enthusiasts who
might have an incorrect impression about what this whole
program is about and may be coming here idealistically asking
us to deal with it. Maybe it is even people like the
superintendent of the National Park who has a misinterpretation
of exactly what this is all about.
So perhaps it is not all that illogical for us to be
pursing it from the standpoint that there are aspects of this
that are appropriately brought before us today and I think this
bill appropriately addresses those aspects. Thank you, Madam
Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Mark Udall.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the panel for taking time to speak with us
today and help us understand this important issue a little more
in depth.
Ms. Kimble, I had a question for you. It seems to me from
what I have been hearing that really what has been said is the
United States took the lead in establishing a lot of these
programs in the 1970s. Is that right?
Ms. Kimble. We took the lead in establishing the World
Heritage Convention. We subsequently joined the Man and the
Biosphere Program at UNESCO some three years after it was
formed.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. In that spirit, Madam Chair, if I
might, I would like to read a short paragraph out of a letter
that I received and ask that the rest of the letter be included
in the record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Madam Chair. The letter
is addressed to me, of course, and it says ``Dear Congressman
Udall, I write to urge you to oppose H.R. 883, the American
Land Sovereignty Protection Act, sponsored by Resources
Committee Chairman Don Young. This legislation is neither
warranted nor wise. It is an unfounded attack on international
conservation programs that recognize areas in the world that
are of ``outstanding universal value.' Contrary to this bill, I
believe the Congress should strengthen and encourage measures
that would lead to greater participation by the United States
in the World Heritage Convention, RAMSAR Wetlands Convention,
the Biosphere Reserve Program, and other worthwhile
international conservation programs.''
This letter is from the Honorable Russell Train, who served
on the Council of Environmental Quality for President Nixon. It
points out to me the bipartisan nature of the creation of many
of these efforts around the world. I would ask, as I mentioned
earlier, that the rest of the letter be included in the record.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Udall of Colorado. If I might make one other comment,
it seems to me, Mr. Yeager, you can confirm or disagree with
me, in attempting to respond to Mr. Tancredo's question, you
were saying that Mr. Finley is an excellent superintendent but
the Solicitor is a better attorney. Is that true?
Mr. Yeager. That is much more elegantly put. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Vento. Would the gentleman yield to me briefly on that
point?
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Sure.
Mr. Vento. Thank you. I would just point out, I don't
intend to extend my questioning period, but I would just point
out that we are relying on a newspaper article here, too.
Superintendent Finley has been in a number of parks including
the Everglades which is also designated as a Man and the
Biosphere Reserve. So I think that we are just relying on a
newspaper article here in terms of what he might have said. I
think that if we really want to find out what his view is or
how this impacted, I think that would be appropriate. I think
it could also be interpreted that he was saying what is
consistent with the existing laws and authorities that exist in
terms of that area, which, incidentally, has BLM, Forest
Service, Native American lands, and a whole variety of lands in
what is called the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Vento.
I see I have a little bit of time left. I might add that
Russell Train at the end of his letter pointed out that areas
in the United States including private lands recognized under
international agreements are subject only to domestic law.
``There is no international legal protection or sanction for
these areas. Thus, I am opposed to requiring congressional
authorization of a site prior to nomination or designation.''
And I think he makes that additional point that I think we need
to make here.
So, Madam Chair, I thank you for the time and yield back
the remainder.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you Mr. Udall.
The Chair now has some questions. The issue of the New
World Mine has been quite prominent in this hearing and I want
to get some things on the record.
First, that the World Mine operated on private property
through a patent, and that there were fourteen nongovernmental
organizations who had appealed to the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. They in
turn, on March 6, 1995, wrote a letter to Mr. George Frampton,
Department of Interior, in which they stated to him the
following: The World Heritage Committee has the authority to
act unilaterally in placing a site on the List of World
Heritage Sites in Danger. Now I would like to juxtapose that to
Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution which clearly says
that Congress needs to make all needful rules and regulations.
I do not believe that it takes a battery of lawyers,
Supreme Court Justices, and everybody else to understand the
clarity of those two positions. Our United States Constitution
is exceedingly clear as to Congress' responsibilities. I
furthermore do not believe that a constitutional issue should
be run by the Supreme Court before the Congress deals with it.
I think we have to have the boldness and the courage and the
tenacity to study these issues and to respond in a manner that
is thoughtful, as our constituents would expect us to. I think
to do otherwise simply engages us in the old paralysis of
analysis.
The statement that was contained in the March 6, 1995,
letter to Interior Assistant Secretary George Frampton is an
official communication that needs to be taken very seriously
because that letter goes on to state the following: ``It is
important to note that Article I of the World Heritage
Convention obliges the State party to protect, conserve,
present, and transmit to future generations World Heritage
Sites for which they are responsible. This obligation extends
beyond the boundary of this site, and Article 5(a) recommends
that State parties integrate the protection of sites into
comprehensive planning programs.'' Now we must remember that
this document was generated as a response to fourteen NGOs
recommending that the World Mine be taken into this world
jurisdiction.
So without objection, I would like to enter into the record
this letter to Mr. Frampton. Is there any objection? Hearing
none, so ordered.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I do have a question for Dr. Kirkpatrick.
What advice can you give the Congress to improve its oversight
of international organizations such as the situation we are
dealing with here?
Ms. Kirkpatrick. I do believe that the oversight of
multilateral organizations poses some very special problems
actually for any legislative body vested with oversight. The
reason being that multilateral organizations characteristically
not only practice bureaucratic decision-making of necessity,
but that bureaucratic decision-making is a good many steps
further removed from an elective body than the bureaucratic
decision-making in a single government. It is easier for the
Congress of the United States to practice oversight of the U.S.
Government, U.S. bureaucracy, though that is not easy, as we
know.
The oversight of international organizations is complicated
because the countries engaged have different views concerning
the appropriateness of oversight, concerning the rectitude, if
you will, of oversight, and concerning which bodies have the
right, in fact, to oversight. And the United Nations is a very
complex organization.
By the way, may I just say that I don't believe that the
issue here is conservation or environment or whether there
should be World Heritage Sites. I think the issue is who should
be charged with protecting them and developing them and how
that should be determined. Under the American system, I believe
that the chain of elected representation and responsibility and
accountability is absolutely essential. All our individual
rights are vested in that chain of representation and
responsibility and accountability, and that chain has the most
tenuous possible connections with operations of multinational
bureaucratic organizations.
The only way really that the Congress can exercise that
oversight I think virtually is to try to work through its own
departments charged with the management of representation in
those organizations. So that the Congress would work through
the State Department and through other environmental agencies.
And that is one of the problems. It just makes it that much
more difficult to reflect and represent and respond to popular
opinion, to the opinion of Americans. And I wish you good luck.
I think it is very difficult to
practice oversight of those
organizations.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is a challenge.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. It is a challenge.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to thank the witnesses very much for
your valuable testimony. I do want you to know that you have
five working days to extend or amend your testimony should you
wish. We would look forward to any additions that you might
have of your testimony.
Excuse me, I am reminded by counsel that it is ten working
days.
Dr. Rabkin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are welcome.
Mr. Vento. Will we get the testimony from Jeane Kirkpatrick
today?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, I think it will come up through the
recorder.
I want to thank these witnesses very much and excuse this
panel of witnesses. Thank you for your time.
Now I would like to turn the Committee over to Barbara
Cubin. I have to go to the floor for a speech and she will take
the Chair for a while. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. [presiding] We will now hear from our second
panel. We have Mr. Stephen Lindsey from Elgin, Arizona; Mr.
David B. Rovig, President, Greystar Resources, Billings,
Montana; Ms. Ann Webster Smith, Chairman Emeritus, U.S.
Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites,
Washington, DC; and Ms. Laurel MacLeod, Director of Legislation
and Public Policy, Concerned Women for America, Washington, DC.
Mr. Vento. Madam Chair, I am going to have to excuse
myself, but I do want to welcome the witnesses, especially the
witness from ICOMOS who is a long-time witness before the
Committee on these particular issues. We have oversight
hearings every year on the budget and we would bring them in
when I had that responsibility, and I am pleased to see her
back.
Ms. Smith. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. All right, everyone is at the witness table
now.
I would like to recognize Mr. Lindsey for his oral
testimony. As Chairman Chenoweth mentioned, we do limit the
oral testimony to five minutes but your entire statement will
be printed in the record. And if you will just watch the lights
there, the yellow light tells you when you have sixty seconds
left. And we will be better about watching our time, too.
So, Mr. Lindsey?
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. LINDSEY, ELGIN, ARIZONA
Mr. Lindsey. I really thank you for letting me come here. I
do appreciate being asked to come. There are a lot of doctors
and folks who have a lot more knowledge than me. I work the
land. I am a rancher in Southeast Arizona. My name is Steve
Lindsey, and I live in Canelo, Arizona, a little burg there as
you are headed towards Parker Canyon Lake, about 75 miles
Southeast of Tucson on the west side of the Hoecake Mountains.
The ranch that my family owns borders the Fort Hoecake on the
east side.
The history of the ranch, my great-great-grandfather moved
into the area in 1866 and homesteaded in what is now Parker
Canyon. In 1910, my great-grandfather moved down to Canelo
where we live now and homesteaded a piece. His house burned
down in 1923 and he bought the adjacent homestead. We are now
living in that house that he bought in 1923.
In 1996, the Southwest Center for Biodiversity petitioned
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list as endangered the
Canelo Hills Ladies Tresses along with two other cienegas
species, cienega being a wetland, in Spanish it means a swamp.
Everybody now calls them ``riparian areas'' but for years we
just called them cienegas. They petitioned them to list these
species.
The Canelo Hills Ladies Tresses grows there on our place.
It is found in five different places around the country that
they know of and is doing best on our place where it is grazed,
is doing the worst on the Nature Conservancy where it is not
grazed. So as you can see in the Federal Register, you can look
this up and you can see that the grazing is not detrimental to
this plant.
After it was listed in 1997, through a lot of public input
and a lot of fights and a lot of things--I didn't figure it
needed to be listed, my family didn't figure it needed to be
listed--after it was listed in January of 1997, in February of
1997, through the paper--Mr. Vento was talking about a
newspaper article--through the paper the Phoenix Republic we
found out that the Southwest Center for Biodiversity was now
petitioning Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to put our 310
acres, well 60 acres of wetland, under the RAMSAR Treaty. I
didn't even know what a RAMSAR Treaty was back then. I made
some phone calls and that's what I am doing here now is trying
to figure out what in the world is going on petitioning Bruce
Babbitt instead of why aren't we coming to Congress and why are
we making my private property part of the public input. What is
going on here? That is what I am doing here is trying to find
out.
I read the other day that a country's most important
natural resource is their children. How true that is. I have
got nine children. My wife is my staff, she came with me here
today. We have been ranching on this place since fourth
generation right there on that place, fifth generation rancher
in Southeast Arizona. I am desiring with all my heart to pass
this ranch on down to my sons and my daughters. I don't see
why, being that we have been ranching and we have had a viable
cattle outfit for all of those years, why we now need
international oversight.
I have heard a lot of the discussions today about different
things that will be able to be done through these conventions.
And Karen Suckling, of the Southwest Center for Biodiversity,
said in the newspaper article, ``By protecting these Arizona
wetlands through the RAMSAR Convention, we get international
oversight.'' I am a little concerned with that, with why we
need international oversight on our property that has been in
my family since 1910. We have been ranching now for 89 years on
60 acres of wetland. I have got some pictures here if you would
want to see them of this wetland. I understand that the
Chesapeake Bay is a RAMSAR site and Chesapeake Bay sure has a
heck of a lot more water in it than our 60 acres down there in
Southeast Arizona.
I just have a little bit more time, so I will shut up.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindsey may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Lindsey.
Mr. Rovig?
STATEMENT OF DAVID B. ROVIG, PRESIDENT, GREYSTAR RESOURCES
LTD., BILLINGS, MONTANA
Mr. Rovig. Madam Chairman, I ask that my prepared statement
be made part of the official record.
Mrs. Cubin. Without objection.
Mr. Rovig. Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I
am David B. Rovig, a mining engineer from Billings, Montana. I
want to testify in support of H.R. 883, the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act. H.R. 883 addresses several key
issues that are of great importance to protecting private
property rights, access to strategic resources, and our
Nation's sovereignty. These issues are, and have been, the
cornerstones of our country's success.
No nation has ever achieved or sustained greatness without
access to natural resources, and certainly no great nation has
ever allowed other nations to dictate its resource policy.
Likewise, only those nations respecting private property rights
have ever sustained greatness. These very important tenets have
worked well for over 200 years but now seem to be tested at
almost every turn by those who now manage our government's
affairs and their handlers in the pseudo-environmental
community.
Let me place in personal terms the need for H.R. 883. In
1987, I was one of the founders of Crown Butte Resources Ltd.,
a company that acquired a few claims in the mountains, and $40
million later had discovered a world-class gold deposit called
the New World Mine in south-central Montana. Unfortunately, as
it turned out, it was within three miles of a remote corner of
Yellowstone Park.
That project made business sense from the very beginning.
It also was a project that we knew from the beginning would be
very closely monitored and it would have to meet or exceed a
mountain of regulations and requirements. After a very careful
review, we knew those hurdles would be difficult but passable.
Crown Butte worked with the State of Montana and Wyoming and
several Federal agencies to chart a course for the completion
of an Environmental Impact Statement. That process alone would
take several years and cost several millions of dollars.
The now well-known piracy of the process began in late
February 1995 when fourteen environmental groups requested that
Yellowstone National Park be listed as a World Heritage Site in
Danger. They saw that we were meeting all the legal and
regulatory tests, so they felt a scare tactic of placing
Yellowstone on the World Heritage List of Sites in Danger might
be their only chance to stop the mine. They did this with the
full support of Yellowstone Park management.
The Administration's bullying tactics and complete sell-out
to the obstructionist agenda of a few elitist pseudo-
environmental groups resulted in an unparalleled government
denial of the free enterprise system, unparalleled at least
until it was used as a stepping stone to the even larger and
more egregious intrusion known as Escalante-Grand Staircase
land grab. What a horrible precedent. Now every objection to
development in the West includes a demand for government buy-
outs.
Mining in this area was nothing new. Only with today's
standards, it was to be done with a minimal impact on the
environment and with the approval and oversight of many State
and Federal agencies. As I mentioned before, we were in that
very structured and deliberative process when a committee
operating under the umbrella of the United Nations came to
Yellowstone National Park, already a World Heritage Site, to
see if it should be added as a site in danger. Incredibly, when
the visit was first publicly announced, the Interior Department
was going to pay for the travel costs of the U.N. members.
These three or four committee members, from such places as
Thailand, made a three-day tourist type visit to the park
during which a three-hour road tour of the New World Mine site
was made. After this short visit, which consisted largely of
media events and photo ops, this group of ``experts'' concluded
that the New World project did endanger Yellowstone Park. In
arriving at this outrageous decision, they chose to ignore the
many volumes of scientific evidence that had been gathered on
the project over several years and at great cost by some of the
world's true experts from industry and government.
The nearly completed New World Mine Environmental Impact
Statement was probably the most comprehensive technical
document ever assembled for such a project. The negation of
this document was a slap in the face of the many agency
professionals, primarily from the Forest Service in the State
of Montana, who had justifiably developed a great professional
pride in their management of such a complex effort.
Past Congresses and Administrations, in conjunction with
Federal agencies and State governments, have developed a very
detailed and extensive review process with full public
involvement. The studies and information required are extensive
and exhaustive by any measure. That process should have been
honored. Instead, it was scuttled. All who played by the rules
paid a dear price in doing so. The State of Montana, which had
invested time and talent of its best regulators, were left out
of the decision altogether. Montana paid the price of losing
all the economic benefit of this project and others that might
have followed could bring. Partly because of decisions like
this, Montana currently ranks fiftieth in the Nation's per
capita income. The miners, the engineers, the businessmen, the
property owners, the counties, the municipalities were all left
in the economic lurch.
To this day, I know the New World Mine could have been
developed and operated in a manner that fully protected
Yellowstone's resources while contributing to the Nation's
economy. Please do not forget that I am a life-long Montanan
and I want Yellowstone to be there for my children and
grandchildren as well as yours. I was trained from a very early
age that if you played by the rules you would be judged
accordingly. That was not the case with the New World Mine.
Three other directors and I resigned from the Crown Butte board
rather than agree to take a piddling amount of Federal money
and pull the plug on the project. A great deal of hard work
went into a viable project and it went out the window with an
ill-conceived political/media decision.
In closing, I would make three recommendations. First, pass
H.R. 883 with strong provisions protecting our sovereignty. Our
country developed the concept of a system of national parks. We
don't now need others to tell us how they should be managed.
Second, let the system work. How can we continue to invest vast
sums of money in projects where a very comprehensive evaluation
system is in place and then, when a select group decides it
should not go forward, have the Federal Treasury pick up the
bill? No mining business or other business should take on
complex projects with the idea that Uncle will buy them out if
the politics get too hot. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, common
sense and reason have to be placed back in the process. Every
day a new layer of regulation is added at some level in the
process. Every day some obstructionist group uses that new
regulation or some mutation of it to effect new barriers the
Congress could not possibly have imagined. And every day we in
the business world are forced to look outside our borders for
new projects. I hope that is not what America is about. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rovig may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. Rovig.
Ms. Smith?
STATEMENT OF ANN WEBSTER SMITH, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, U.S.
COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Smith. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank
you for an opportunity to be here today. I am going to
summarize my remarks and ask that the full remarks be included
in the record.
On behalf of some 600 members of the United States
Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites,
we oppose H.R. 883 because we feel that it would limit or deny
to Americans the opportunity to protect, recognize, and honor
that of their cultural and natural patrimony which is or could
be recognized to be, in the language of the World Heritage
Convention, ``of outstanding universal value'' and worthy of
the prestige that such recognition by 156 other nations and the
international community would imply.
We are a professional membership organization with members
who represent architecture, archeology, art and architectural
history, town planning, urban history, archives. Our
organization was established in 1965 and we're concerned with
the conservation, protection, rehabilitation, and enhancement
of historic properties and groups of buildings, historic
districts and sites, including archaeological sites, and in
educational and informational programs designed to reflect that
concern. U.S./ICOMOS is one of a network of independent non-
governmental national committees representing similar
professions, with more than five thousand members in almost a
hundred countries, the International Council on Monuments and
Sites, ICOMOS.
Membership in ICOMOS, like ratification of the World
Heritage Convention, we have found seems to be a mark of
nationhood especially on the part of the newly independent
states. We heard conversations today about the fact that
developing countries are not as interested in some of this
legislation and some of these international conventions as more
developed countries are. We don't think that is true. We think
that the ``new'' countries and developing countries are even
more proud of what they have and even more anxious to have what
is theirs recognized and protected within their own countries
and in educational terms by listing on the World Heritage list.
More importantly in terms of the proposed legislation, H.R.
883, ICOMOS is one of the two non-governmental bodies, the
other one being the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), which are named in the Convention as the
professional consulting bodies on nominations to the
Convention. As you know, the Convention is a list of natural
and cultural or man-made properties that have been determined
to be of ``outstanding universal value'' to each nation and all
nations.
We would like to address those aspects of this bill which
address the Convention and U.S. participation in it. Rather
than reducing or limiting U.S. participation, like Russell
Train, who was instrumental in the development of the
legislation in the first place and had a long and brilliant
career on behalf of the American Government under President
Nixon and others, U.S./ICOMOS would encourage this Committee to
strengthen and encourage measures which would lead to greater
U.S. participation in the World Heritage Convention.
The Convention has its roots in proposals put forward
during the first Nixon Administration at the Stockholm
Conference on the Environment in 1972. Russell Train headed
that U.S. delegation. Subsequently, the U.S. was the first
nation to ratify that Convention. Since that time, 156 other
nations have ratified the Convention and some 582 properties,
117 natural properties, and 445 cultural or man-made, and 20
mixed, which are both natural and cultural, have been listed on
the World Heritage list and recognized for their outstanding
universal value. It is the single most accepted international
convention or treaty in history.
In this country, important historic properties such as
Thomas Jefferson's Monticello and Independence Hall have been
listed, eight historic properties, and twelve natural
properties of unique distinction, such as the Everglades and
Grand Canyon National Park. In other countries, cultural
properties of such undeniable outstanding universal value as
the Acropolis, Westminster Abbey, and the Great Wall of China
have been listed, along with whole towns or urban areas, such
as Quebec City, Venice and its lagoon, and Islamic Cairo.
In this country, as in other countries, the nomination of
properties is a governmental process which determines which
properties from among its national patrimony it considers to be
of such ``outstanding universal value.'' In the United States,
this process is directed by the National Park Service, proposed
nominations are given careful professional review within the
Park Service, nominations are reviewed and discussion
concerning them is then published in the Federal Register. It
is not a secret process.
Listing on the World Heritage List includes no
international legal protection or sanction. Protection for
nomination or listed properties grows out of the laws and
statutes of the U.S. or any other nominating countries and the
country's protective measures must be stated as a part of the
nomination. In nominating a property, the U.S. or other
nominating countries are neither limited nor prohibited from
any proposed use or action except those limits or prohibitions
that have been established by the country's own laws.
Nomination forms for properties listed call for a statement
of laws or decrees which govern the protection of monuments and
sites, including evidence of a master plan, a land-use plan,
other plans. The nomination form asks for information as to
whether these legislative or statutory measures prevent
uncontrolled exploitation of the ground below the property, the
demolition or reconstruction of buildings located on the
property, or permit other significant changes. The nominations
must also indicate what, if any, measures exist to encourage
the revitalization of the property.
To examine specific provisions of H.R. 883, section 2(a),
nomination and listing do not affect or diminish private
interest in real property, does not impinge in any way on
private property rights, does not conflict with congressional
or constitutional responsibilities, and does not diminish
private interest in real property.
What is the value of the Convention and the World Heritage
list? Those countries that are State Parties participate in the
convention and that it as a mechanism for encouraging national
pride, for stimulating education concerning each country's own
national treasures whether they represent history, cultural, or
natural wonders. The countries where properties are located see
listing on the list as a means for economic development,
particularly in terms of encouraging tourism and visitation, a
major source of local and foreign investment in many countries.
In most countries that adhere to the Convention, a World
Heritage Convention listing is sought because they know that it
works to stimulate local pride, economic development, and to
encourage private investment.
In the United States--I am sorry, I am beyond my time but I
would like to say this--in the United States, in spite of our
own heritage, in spite of our beautiful and well-planned
historic areas such as Savannah, Charleston, New Orleans,
Georgetown, Annapolis, or San Antonio, no towns are listed. Why
is that? It is because an element of the 1980 amendments to the
National Historic Preservation Act had limited the nomination
process. Even though in other countries their historic
districts, their historic ensembles or quarters are listed, we
in the United States cannot nominate ours because of our own
limiting legislatioin and guidelines for its implementation.
Many historic communities or towns are very aware of this and
are very frustrated by the fact that they are not entitled to
the recognition which historic districts in other countries
receive.
We would encourage the House Committee on Resources to give
serious consideration to the negative impact that H.R. 883
would have on existing measures for recognition such as the
World Heritage process. The process grew out of a U.S.
initiative, the U.S. was the first nation to ratify it, and it
is a measure which has done much to achieve recognition and
protection of the cultural and natural heritage which are found
to be of ``outstanding universal value.'' We see this as a
program which is benign, constructive, educational, and
enriching. We would encourage that you try to find ways in
which it can be strengthened rather than diminished or
weakened. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Ms. MacLeod?
STATEMENT OF LAUREL MACLEOD, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION AND PUBLIC
POLICY, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. MacLeod. Good afternoon. I would like to thank members
of the Committee for giving me the opportunity to address you
today. I also request that the full text of my remarks be
placed in the record.
I am the Director of Legislation for Concerned Women for
America and I am here today representing CWA, which is the
nation's largest public policy women's organization in the
country, and here representing over 500,000 members.
As a women's organization, we first became concerned about
Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites after receiving
many letters from individuals across the country who claimed
that their private property rights were being infringed upon.
We researched the subject and discovered a number of disturbing
things.
The biosphere reserve philosophy, as we have already heard
today, was the brainchild of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organizations, UNESCO. UNESCO still
directs the international Man and Biosphere Program, which
coordinates the creation and use of biosphere reserves around
the world. Here in the United States, our Man and the Biosphere
Reserve subsidiary, called USMAB, is run through the State
Department. USMAB nominates land or water sites for Biosphere
Reserve designation, then UNESCO makes the final designation
and approves the site. Incredibly, Congress plays no role in
this process even though there are now 47 Biosphere Reserves in
the United States, comprising about 44 million acres of land.
Practically, Biosphere Reserves already have a detrimental
effect upon private property ownership. For example, the
boundaries of the Champlain Adirondack Biosphere Reserve,
called CABR, which is the largest reserve in this nation,
encompasses land owned by both Federal and State Governments as
well as private property owners. One USMAB document called
``Biosphere Reserves in Action'' explains that the biosphere
reserve managers of CABR are trying to find ``environmentally
sound solutions'' to problems of ``conflicting'' uses. In other
words, people, industry, consumption, and technology are the
``conflicting'' uses that are in the way of environmental
goals.
While the USMAB sings the praises of this biosphere reserve
philosophy, many of the 400,000 people living in it are singing
a very different song. Hardest hit are the people living on the
3 million acres of private property that was arbitrarily turned
into a heavily regulated buffer zone around the Adirondack
State Park. They were not compensated and reportedly these land
management decisions have resulted in much poverty and
unemployment.
Our members are also very concerned about American
sovereignty as it relates to the World Heritage Sites. As you
know, the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, Monticello, the
Florida Everglades, and many other places like that in the
United States are designated World Heritage Sites in accordance
with the Convention Concerning the Protection of World and
Natural Heritage. This ratified treaty requires our government
to choose monuments and historical sites for special
designation and preservation. A very reasonable and worthwhile
activity. However, there is a catch.
Once a World Heritage Site is designated and approved, any
preservation questions that arise are sent to the World
Heritage Committee, and that is a United Nations body that
answers to UNESCO, not to Congress. This process of dealing
with preservation questions invites sovereignty problems. For
example, in 1995, the Crown Butte Mine Company decided to start
a mining project that was one mountain range removed from
Yellowstone National Park, which is a World Heritage Site and
also a Biosphere Reserve. Ninety percent of the proposed mine
consisted of private mining claims. Yet a coalition of
environmental groups wrote to the U.N. World Heritage Committee
and cited the proposed mine along with ``timber harvest,
homebuilding, new population clusters, and human-bear
conflicts'' as the dangers that were threatening Yellowstone.
But remember, these were the things outside the boundaries of
Yellowstone.
In response, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee chastened
the Interior Department, which in turn invited the U.N.
Committee to come to the United States and examine Yellowstone
and the mine proposal. The committee came and held a hearing on
September 8, 1995, and the Committee Chairman from Thailand
stated that the ``United States has a duty to take steps to
preserve the Yellowstone ecosystem across administrative
boundaries of the park. Some 12 million acres of national
forest and wilderness that surround Yellowstone must be
considered an extension of the National Park if the whole
system is to be preserved.'' In other words, a United Nations
representative came into this country and told our government,
a sovereign nation, that a large buffer zone should be built
around Yellowstone, despite the fact that it would certainly
affect and harm private property owners.
Later, the World Heritage Committee decided that
Yellowstone is, indeed, a World Heritage Site in Danger, and in
1997 Congress appropriated the funds to buy the New World Mine,
ending the publicity that had highlighted the harm to private
property rights.
Members of the Committee, you are the men and women elected
by citizens in this country to legislate in the United States.
And it is up to you to defend the private property rights of
citizens when they are being, in effect, taken away by the
implementation of decisions made by unelected bureaucrats. The
over 500,000 members of Concerned Women for America
wholeheartedly believe that H.R. 883 is needed to bring
Congress back into a process from which it has been too long
excluded. Only Congress, not UNESCO, not the Interior
Department, or the World Heritage Committee can best represent
the needs of the American people and of our land.
We applaud Representative Don Young for his tireless work
on this important legislation, and we respectfully request your
favorable disposition of this bill. Thank you so much for your
time and attention to this important matter.
[The prepared statement of Ms. MacLeod may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Ms. Smith, do you believe that all of the sites that have
been designated under these three Acts were deserving of that
designation, at least the ones within the United States, not
worldwide?
Ms. Smith. I can only speak to the World Heritage List and
the World Heritage Convention.
Mr. Pombo. Okay, in terms to those?
Ms. Smith. I would say that the process has been scholarly,
professional, and with enormous attention to detail. The Park
Service has been extremely conscientious about its role in the
nomination of properties. As a matter of fact, in the United
States we have been even more conscientious about our role in
terms of the nomination of properties than some other countries
have been I would say.
The Convention is such a wonderful tool for education. It
is such a wonderful tool for making school children and adults
understand the value of our past and the importance of
retaining that past for our future. I think that everything
that we have nominated indeed merited listing.
Mr. Pombo. May I ask, why are you concerned that if there
was another step in the process that required congressional
approval that it would somehow, and I don't remember your exact
quote, but in your oral testimony you said something to the
effect that this would take away from the American people
something. Do you believe that Congress would take away any of
the current World Heritage Sites that are listed in this
country?
Ms. Smith. No, I don't think there would be--I can't
imagine that there would be any measures to reduce our current
listings.
Mr. Pombo. That is a pretty inflammatory statement that you
made in your oral testimony. I am just wondering which sites
you think were not deserving or you believe that Congress would
not approve.
Ms. Smith. No, on the contrary, I think that there are
others which should be listed. That is my concern.
Mr. Pombo. Are they not as deserving as the ones that are
on the list? Would the case be much harder to make on the ones
that you think should be listed?
Ms. Smith. No. It is a very deliberative process.
Mr. Pombo. Why do you believe then that if this bill were
enacted into law and it required another step that said
Congress had to approve that we would somehow not find these
sites deserving or not find these sites up to snuff in terms of
putting them on the World Heritage List?
Ms. Smith. I have two concerns. One is that I have long
been concerned about the fact that no historic district in this
country is listed on the World Heritage List whereas every
other country in the world has nominated historic districts to
the World Heritage List.
Mr. Pombo. I will give you that. I am just wondering what
another step in the process that required congressional
approval would--do you believe that Congress would look at the
historical districts and say these are not worthy of being
listed and we don't want to nominate them?
Ms. Smith. The process for the nomination of historic
districts includes the requirement that all private property
owners consent to the listing of their properties. That is what
has limited their nomination.
Mr. Pombo. That is under current law?
Ms. Smith. Yes. The 1980 amendments and Interior's
guidelines for their implementation.
Mr. Pombo. So if we had another step in the process that
required congressional approval, it would not affect what you
are speaking to right now?
Ms. Smith. I would like to see the Congress look
differently at the nomination of districts because World
Heritage Listing does not affect anything that a private
property owner can do with his property in a city or in a rural
area.
But as far as the other properties, the National Park
Service has not nominated a U.S. property to the World Heritage
List for about five or eight years. And for the last five or
eight years every other country in the world has been
nominating properties and they have been going on and on and
on. Next week ICOMOS in Paris will consider 57 new nominations
which have been put forward this year, none from the United
States. None last year. None the year before. And all of this
is because the Park Service is very reluctant to nominate
properties and because of the limits on historic district
nominations.
Mr. Pombo. It is very confusing to me, and I am sure to
others as well, that proponents of these programs always say
that there is nothing here, there are no restrictions, there
are no problems, there is no power, there is no regulatory
authority, there is nothing to be afraid of under these
programs. But you are so concerned that Congress might have to
approve this. I don't understand how you get from a totally
voluntary program that is just a recognition of the importance
and everything, that you are so terrified that Congress would
have to approve those that you come in here and you say this is
going to deny future generations the historical areas if we
have congressional approval of nominations. How do you get from
that to that?
That is very inflammatory rhetoric that has very little to
do with what we are talking about. We are saying, and there
many people, including myself, who believe that there is a
constitutional duty on the part of Congress to approve joining
in on any of these. And whether it is the World Heritage Sites
or the Man and the Biosphere, whatever it is, maybe some of
them are deserving, maybe some of them are not, I don't know, I
have not, like you, spent all the time studying these and
learning all about them. Maybe it is a good program, maybe it
is not. But why is everybody so afraid of saying Congress has
to approve it?
Ms. Smith. I don't think anybody is afraid and we certainly
don't wish to inflame the rhetoric on the question of the World
Heritage List. I think that we feel that Congress should be
encouraging the listing of properties on the World Heritage
List.
Mr. Pombo. And they may. That may be exactly what happens.
Myself or Mr. Inslee, or any other member of the Committee, may
be in here saying I have got a great site in my district that
should be on the World Heritage Site list. I would venture to
say that Mr. Lindsey and his representative is probably not
going to be in here saying that is the perfect site to be on
there. But I am sure there will be members in here saying they
have something they think ought to be put on there and would
become the strongest advocates of the program. But everybody is
so terrified. If there is nothing here, you know, don't pay
attention to the man behind the curtain, if there is nothing
here, then why are you afraid? And I am not putting words in
your mouth. You said this would take away from future
generations the enjoyment of our history and culture--for
Congress to approve these?
Ms. Smith. Another layer of approvals makes it even more
difficult to nominate and recognize properties than is the case
today.
Mr. Pombo. That very well may be true and I will not
quibble with you on whether or not that is in fact true,
because I believe it is true. But there are many people,
including myself, who believe that we have a constitutional
duty and responsibility that before any American properties,
whether voluntarily or not, are put in a World Heritage Site we
have a responsibility to act. I don't know why that should
concern you.
Unfortunately, my time has expired. I am going to recognize
Mr. Inslee for any questions he may have at this point.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Chair, our side of the aisle would
certainly defer to the Chair if you want to proceed for a
period, if I could reserve some time at the end.
Mr. Pombo. I would be happy to. I will keep going, so if
you want to--Just give me another five minutes and I will pass
on the next round.
Mr. Inslee. That is great. If you would just reserve a
couple minutes for me at the end, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Lindsey, so that I understand the process that you went
through, how did you find out that your property was being
suggested for listing under the RAMSAR Treaty?
Mr. Lindsey. Our neighbor read it in the paper, actually,
in the Phoenix Republic and sent us the article from the paper.
Mr. Pombo. You were not the one who went forward and
suggested that? From the previous testimony that we heard from
the Administration, I was led to believe that all of these
sites are nominated by the property owners and by the local
people. That is not the case?
Mr. Lindsey. No. It took us very much by surprise. We don't
figure we need to be under the RAMSAR Convention, sir. So no,
that is not the case.
Mr. Pombo. So it wasn't your idea? In fact, you opposed it?
Mr. Lindsey. In fact, I am opposing it. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pombo. And was it your neighbors who had nominated the
property? Was it a group of neighbors that all got together and
nominated the property and they just didn't talk to you about
it?
Mr. Lindsey. No, sir. It was a local environmental group
based in Tucson called the Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity.
Mr. Pombo. And you said Tucson was 75 miles?
Mr. Lindsey. Yes, sir, 75 miles.
Mr. Pombo. So it was not local people that were doing this?
Mr. Lindsey. No, sir.
Mr. Pombo. Do any of your neighbors belong to that group?
Are they the ones who brought that group in and said this is
something we should do?
Mr. Lindsey. No, sir. I believe the reason they petitioned
to have it listed was because of the Endangered Species Act.
They did find that orchid there and it states in the article
that it will give them international oversight over these
endangered species.
Mr. Pombo. Are you familiar with the Endangered Species
Act?
Mr. Lindsey. Very much so, yes, sir.
Mr. Pombo. Would you under current law be able to change,
destroy, harm, harass the habitat of the endangered species?
Mr. Lindsey. Not of the plants, sir. The way the Endangered
Species Act is written, actually the Federal Government, thank
you, Lord, has no jurisdiction over a plant on private
property. And this is one of the reasons I feel that this same
environmental group that sued for that listing, by the way,
this is why I feel that they went ahead and petitioned Babbitt
to have this listed as a RAMSAR site so they could have that
oversight of our private property.
Mr. Pombo. This is interesting because under current U.S.
law under the Endangered Species Act, plants that are listed as
endangered are not regulated on private property.
Mr. Lindsey. Exactly.
Mr. Pombo. If this was listed as a RAMSAR site and there
were some international designation over this property, how
could that possibly affect you?
Mr. Lindsey. I don't know, sir, if you have read anything
in the RAMSAR Treaty, Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance. This is the Convention's strategic plan for 1997 to
2002. It states the Convention of Wetlands of International
Importance, Especially Waterfowl Habitat, ``to integrate
conservation and wise use of wetlands and all contracting
parties into national, provincial, and local planning and
decision-making on land-use, ground water management,
catchment, river basin, and coastal zone planning, and all
other environmental planning and management.'' That's a broad
brush, sir. Something, as I say, we don't feel that we need to
have implemented on our private property.
Second, the introduction states that ``Through this plan,
the Convention's long-standing technical work in wetlands is
strengthened and new catalytic role in the development and
assistance of community is established. The Convention's
technical and policy work becomes more closely related to the
broader concerns of the Convention on Biological Diversity and
its traditional involvement with water fowl is related more
clearly to the Convention of Migratory Species.'' This is
mission creep, sir. This is not what this RAMSAR Treaty was
written to do.
Mr. Pombo. The interesting point about it is that
proponents of these programs, opponents of this legislation
continue to say that there is no regulatory authority, there is
nothing that they can do.
Mr. Lindsey. I wonder how many of those people, sir, have
landed inside those biosphere regions, how many of those
people's private land that has been in their family for years
is being considered for a RAMSAR Treaty? It is all right for us
out West. Out West, we are a whole different ball of wax, it is
a whole different game out there, as you well know being from
California, sir.
Mr. Pombo. I am seventh generation cattleman and fifth
generation on my ranch. So I can understand what you are
talking about.
Mr. Lindsey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Rovig, I had a question about the situation
that you found yourself in. Did you ask to be included within
the World Heritage Site, the Yellowstone listing? Did you
invite people----
Mr. Rovig. Absolutely not. We, too, read about it in the
paper.
Mr. Pombo. You read about it in the paper?
Mr. Rovig. Correct.
Mr. Pombo. So in your case it was not voluntary?
Mr. Rovig. Absolutely not.
Mr. Pombo. Was it your neighbors that wanted to include you
within the site?
Mr. Rovig. By any normal definition of neighbor, certainly
not.
Mr. Pombo. The adjoining property owners?
Mr. Rovig. No, none of them.
Mr. Pombo. Who wanted to include you?
Mr. Rovig. A group of environmentalists primarily out of
the Bozeman area. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition took it
upon themselves to----
Mr. Pombo. Forgive me. How close is that to your property?
Mr. Rovig. By road, Bozeman would be about 150 miles.
Mr. Pombo. So they would not be considered locals?
Mr. Rovig. No.
Mr. Pombo. Was it a grassroots movement from within the
local community that----
Mr. Rovig. Of course not. It is a coalition of national and
possibly even international environmental groups.
Mr. Pombo. I am just trying to square the testimony that we
received earlier with what actually happens. We are told that
it is a grassroots movement, it is local people, it is people
nominating their own properties. Tell me about the site that
you had. Is it somewhat unique from the surrounding properties?
Mr. Rovig. It is unique in that it is private ground.
Nearly everything around us is Federal ground in some fashion
or another. But topographically and geographically, no, it is
not unique. It is in a mountain range that goes tens if not
hundreds of miles in every direction.
Mr. Pombo. I have had the opportunity to fly over that
particular area in a little Cessna and it looked the same for a
long time.
Mr. Rovig. It looks the same for a very long time. You fly
over it in a 727 and it looks the same for quite a while.
Mr. Pombo. That it does.
Mr. Rovig. This property was oftentimes portrayed as being
in Yellowstone Park when, in fact, it is about three miles
northeast of the most northeastern corner of the park. As Ms.
MacLeod indicated, it was a mountain range away. In fact, it is
two mountain ranges away where all of the facilities would be.
There would have been no possibility of any visual intrusion
into the park from the proposed operation.
Mr. Pombo. You have been in the mining business for a long
time.
Mr. Rovig. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pombo. I looked at your biography. If you were to go
out and start a mine today, how difficult would it be to go
through U.S. environmental standards before you could open that
mine?
Mr. Rovig. Difficult enough that I am not going to try it
again.
Mr. Pombo. Give me an estimate of months it would take to
get it approved.
Mr. Rovig. Well, to give you some specific examples. In the
State of Montana, one mine trying to be permitted by Asarco, a
major corporation, has been in the Environmental Impact
Statement process for twelve years.
Mr. Pombo. Twelve years?
Mr. Rovig. Yes, sir. It is not uncommon in the United
States for mine permitting to take in excess of five years.
That one, I agree, is perhaps a bit of an anomaly. But five or
more years is not out of the norm.
Mr. Pombo. In your experience, would you be fairly
comfortable in testifying here today that any mine that would
be approved for operation within the United States would be
environmentally safe and sound?
Mr. Rovig. Every modern mine that is permitted under the
NEPA and various State policies in recent years has proven to
be a very good neighbor, environmentally and in every other
way. Too often, people are trying to make the case that a mine
today will result in events that happened yesteryear. But in
fact, there are more regulations put I think on the mining
industry than anything but maybe the nuclear industry now. At
the New World, we were going to have to achieve I believe it
was 37 Federal permits and about 14 State permits to take that
thing forward.
Mr. Pombo. The folks that took I think you said a bus tour
of the site, are you familiar with what countries all of those
folks were from?
Mr. Rovig. Right now, I can't tell you where they were
from. They were all from well outside the U.S. The chairman was
from Thailand, I believe one was from Germany, and I don't know
where the other two were from.
Mr. Pombo. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Inslee, I will give you an opportunity, or I will go to
Ms. Chenoweth if you want to question.
Mr. Inslee is recognized.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Lindsey, what does a Ladies Tress look like, that
plant?
Mr. Lindsey. It grows six to twelve inches high. You know
how an orchid looks, it has got little spikelets on it that go
like that.
Mr. Inslee. It is not a problem for your cattle operations
itself, there are no toxins or anything involved?
Mr. Lindsey. No, sir. Actually, like I said, it is found in
five different places that they know of in Southeast Arizona,
four of those places are grazed, one place isn't. It is doing
the best, according to the Federal Register, on our place, and
the other three grazed follow in suit. It is not doing well
where it isn't grazed because, of course, plants grow up around
it and nothing poops on it, so it doesn't get the fertilizer
and the sunlight that it needs.
Mr. Inslee. How do you feel, generally speaking, about
efforts to preserve that plant? Do you think that is a good
idea or not a good idea, or does it matter to you?
Mr. Lindsey. It is a good idea. My family has been
preserving it for 89 years now. We have been ranching cattle on
that place and my family has been preserving it for 89 years.
See, they don't have a history on this plant. It was found on
our place in 1968 by some school teachers that took us on a
little field trip when I was a young kid and they discovered it
there. They don't know if this plant grew in every canyon. They
don't know anything about this plant. Just all of a sudden it
shows up and now we have got an environmental group here that
has an agenda and so they want it listed as endangered.
Mr. Inslee. Do I take it then that you sort of agree with
reasonable steps to preserve it, that's okay with you?
Mr. Lindsey. Sure.
Mr. Inslee. Okay.
Mr. Lindsey. Let me restate that. I'm sorry. Reasonable
steps to preserve it as long as nobody comes on my private land
and tells me how to do it.
Mr. Inslee. Okay. What do you think should be done to help
preserve it?
Mr. Lindsey. I think we better leave it like it is because
if we start helping to preserve it, after 89 years in my family
of cattle grazing and historically from the 1700s cattle have
been in that area, if we start fencing it off and trying to
preserve it, as we as humans do, that bugger is going to die.
Mr. Inslee. Has anybody attempted to restrict your cattle
operations or ordered you to reduce your number of head or
anything like that?
Mr. Lindsey. No, sir, not as of yet. As I said, the Federal
Government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have
any jurisdiction over that plant and it is not listed with the
State yet.
Mr. Inslee. So at least to date there is no intrusion on
your operations by the Federal Government or these RAMSAR
agreement folks?
Mr. Lindsey. Exactly. Today.
Mr. Inslee. So as I understand it, as of this moment nobody
has tried to interfere with your operation?
Mr. Lindsey. No, sir.
Mr. Inslee. So I guess you are saying you are just
concerned that could happen in the future?
Mr. Lindsey. You bet.
Mr. Inslee. Okay. Now let me tell you what I know about
this and then I'm going to ask a question. What I know about
this treaty, as far as I can tell, it doesn't give any
international authority the right or privilege in any way,
shape, or form to impose a regulatory burden on a property
owner in the United States. It doesn't give them the ability to
order you to reduce your head, it doesn't give them the ability
to order you not to graze on that 60 acres where this cienega--
how do you pronounce that?
Mr. Lindsey. Cienega.
Mr. Inslee. Cienega, where that is. It doesn't give any of
these groups that authority to do that. What it does do is it
allows them apparently to shine some public attention to this
issue, but it does not give them ability to regulate
specifically your operations.
Now if that is true, if that is true that nobody can
regulate your land under these treaties, I am not asking you to
accept that, if that is true, do you have a problem with it
then if they can't regulate it?
Mr. Lindsey. You bet, because this is my private property,
sir. That is something that my great-grandfather homesteaded.
The pursuit of happiness, okay, he wanted to do this. He
settled there with the Federal Government's blessing. We don't
need that. The Endangered Species Act was signed into law in
1972 and it didn't start biting us on the rear ends until the
1990s. So if that happens now, you understand what I am saying.
Why do that on private property, especially if it doesn't let
anybody have any jurisdiction? That is what I asked them about
this species, why list it, why go through all those hoops, why
spend the taxpayers' money when it is found in five places and
everyone of those places is private property? Why list it
period? Why not just leave us alone?
Mr. Inslee. I appreciate your comments. My time has run
out.
Mr. Rovig, do I understand that the property you are
describing that was subject to this potential mine, none of it
was in an area listed or designated by any of these treaties?
Is that accurate?
Mr. Rovig. When we got there, that is correct.
Mr. Inslee. Was there a proposal to list your specific
identified fee-title held property or property that held
mineral rights on it, was there any designation of your
property by any of these treaties?
Mr. Rovig. I don't know how specific the designation was,
but certainly the whole visit was based on the idea that the
New World Mine was somehow or other going to endanger
Yellowstone Park and the area. The whole effort was focused on
that point.
Mr. Inslee. But do I understand correctly, and I have been
told this is true, I just need you to confirm it or say it is
inaccurate, that in fact there was no designation of your
property under these treaties? Is that accurate?
Mr. Rovig. Specifically, that is correct, yes.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [presiding] It looks like we are going to
be calling for a vote right away. So I will just finish up with
my questioning.
Mr. Lindsey, welcome to the Committee. I have heard you
before and I appreciate your coming. Regarding the Canelo Hills
Lady Tresses, I understand that the Nature Conservancy has some
property adjacent to yours or very close to yours.
Mr. Lindsey. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And are they one of the four properties
that you were referring to with regards to how successful this
endangered species is?
Mr. Lindsey. No, ma'am. No, not successful.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Can you tell me, do both properties have
similar densities of this particular species?
Mr. Lindsey. No, ma'am. We have more on our property.
According to the biologist for the Nature Conservancy, there
are more plants growing on our property.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you are grazing on your property?
Mr. Lindsey. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Rovig, with regards to any potential designation on the
New World Mine, wasn't it true that there was an understanding
there was a buffer zone outside of the designated border for a
Biosphere Reserve and the World Heritage Site?
Mr. Rovig. The folks that have self-appointed themselves to
take care of that area have continually called it the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem, and I believe that is what the World
Heritage Committee was focusing on is that, yes, there would
clearly have to be a buffer zone of who knows how large
surrounding it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But you did not realize that this may
impact your operation of the mine? You had not been advised of
that ahead of time?
Mr. Rovig. We were advised of nothing regarding the U.N.
visit, that is correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Do you think that the World Heritage
Committee's action regarding the New World Mine had an adverse
effect on the New World property at all?
Mr. Rovig. Oh, I don't think there is any question about
it. It was just one of several stepping stones that were used
to hijack the process. There was an EIS in place that was soon
to come out in draft form and I think the general consensus was
that it would come out showing the New World Mine could have
gone ahead rather smartly and complied with all environmental
concerns. I think that is the reason that this hijacking took
place.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Are you pleased with the outcome?
Mr. Rovig. I am disgusted with the outcome.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I am glad to get that on the record. I am,
too.
Mr. Rovig. I am glad to put it on the record.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Again for the record, wasn't the New World
Mine project on private land outside the World Heritage Site?
Mr. Rovig. It clearly was outside the Yellowstone Park
boundary by about three miles. It was largely on private land.
The reserve was about 90 percent under private holdings. Yes,
there were some mining claims on Forest Service land that would
have been part of the project. They would have been primarily
mill sites.
Mrs. Chenoweth. When did discovery take place at that site?
Mr. Rovig. Discovery of that site took place, as far as we
know, in the 1860s. But as far as my involvement, I bought the
first piece of property up there in 1982, acquired the second
piece in 1987, and we really from 1987 forward made the world
class discovery of the New World Mine.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But from discovery until it was taken over,
it had been in continuous operation? What was the history
there?
Mr. Rovig. From 1987, we had continual operations save
during some of the winter months when it just was impossible.
But the project certainly was going forward but without some of
those site operations. We tried drilling through one winter and
it just was not physically possible up there.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Okay. But there had been enough activity on
the mine to keep the site active from discovery until 1987?
Mr. Rovig. Oh, absolutely. We had six or seven drills
running most of the time that we could access the property.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Rovig.
Mr. Lindsey, I understand that you wrote a poem about the
proposal to designate your property as a RAMSAR wetland.
Mr. Lindsey. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. For the record, I wonder if you would share
that with the Committee?
Mr. Lindsey. Yes, ma'am. When I first started, I said a
country's most important natural resource is their children and
I said that my wife and I have nine children, five boys and
four girls. With all my heart, I want to pass this ranch on to
them. Only 2 percent of the Nation, as we know, is raising the
food for the rest of the 98 percent because it is a hard way to
make a living, and now with government regulations it is even
harder. And I wrote this poem, and I can get kind of emotional
when I quote this poem.
``We was riding on the mountain up above the old Page
place, right smack dab on top of Page Peak overlooking a lot of
space.
To the northeast lay Aljarita and to south there lay the
rough, and gathering cows in this country is usually pretty
tough.
But today I wasn't worried cause I knew I had the best, I
had my five boys with me, there was Joshua, and Jake, and Nest,
And little Joe and Nathan they was riding with us too, and
when it comes to catching wild cows, these boys has caught a
few.
So I sent Joshua and Jake to the northeast and the rest
they all went south, that left me and my cow dog Sally and
she's a foaming at the mouth.
But I says wait a minute Sally, I need some time to think,
and I leans across my saddle and my heart begins to sink.
I says there goes the sixth generation to ranch this old
rock pile, the cowboy life is what they want, they don't want
that city style.
But it seems some arm-chair ecologists don't think that
sixth generations is enough, cause they've got that college
learning and all that book-reading stuff.
Well they found an endangered orchid and a water dog and a
floating plant, and next you know they'll find a bug or some
endangered ant.
They want to take away this ranch and take away my right to
graze, and now an international treaty has been added to this
maze.
Soon, one nation indivisible will be governed by foreign
laws, by countries that can't even run themselves they've got
so many flaws.
Well my great-great-grandpa, my great-grandpa, my grandpa,
and my dad, each passed this ranch on to their boys and, be it
good or bad,
This country is in good enough shape to run javelina, and
lions, and deer, things I see most everyday and their
extinction isn't near.
Well I guess I'll just quit worrying. Sally she's chomping
at my leg, she wants to catch a cow so bad she's like a powder
keg.
And look, them boys they've caught a cow and they've tied
her to a tree, but I guess I'll just quit worrying and ride on
down and see.''
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Lindsey. That's a fitting
closure to this very interesting hearing.
I want to thank the panelists for your witness and your
testimony on this issue. Thank you very, very much. And as you
know, you have ten working days to amend your testimony should
you wish.
The staff may have questions, likely they will, and so we
would appreciate your answers to additional questions as
quickly as possible.
Thank you very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT--H.R. 883
BRIEFING PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Designation of United Nations' World Heritage Sites, RAMSAR
Sites and Biosphere Reserves results in centralization of
policy-making authority at the Federal level, particularly in
the Executive Branch. It also results in reduced input into
land use decisions by state and local government and
individuals. These designations also affect the use and market
value of private lands adjacent to or intermixed with Federal
lands. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 883)
requires specific approval of Congress before any area within
the U.S. is included in an international land reserve and
protects the property rights of neighboring landowners. The
bill currently has 142 cosponsors. A similar bill, H.R. 901,
passed the House in the 105th Congress by a vote of 236-191.
BACKGROUND
The objectives of H.R. 883 are to preserve the sovereignty
of the United States over our own lands and to protect state
sovereignty and property rights in adjacent non-Federal lands.
H.R. 883 asserts the power of Congress, established by the
Constitution, over management and use of lands belonging to the
United States. The international agreement covering World
Heritage Sites, for example, largely leaves Congress out of the
process. The bill reforms this process by requiring clear
Congressional approval before lands within the United States
can be included in these international agreements.
United Nations Biosphere Reserves, RAMSAR Sites and World
Heritage Sites are under the jurisdiction of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
World Heritage Sites are natural sites or cultural monuments
recognized by UNESCO under ``The Convention Concerning
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.'' RAMSAR
Sites are wetlands recognized by UNESCO under the ``Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl
Habitat.'' Biosphere Reserves are part of the U.S. Man and
Biosphere Program which operates in conjunction with a
worldwide program under UNESCO. The U.S. program operates
without legislative direction, is not authorized by Congress,
nor is the program part of an international treaty. Over 68
percent of the land in our National Parks, Preserves and
Monuments have been designated as a United Nations World
Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or both. Biosphere Reserves
alone cover an area about the size of Colorado, our eighth
largest state. There are now 47 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, 15
RAMSAR Sites and 20 World Heritage Sites in the United States.
ANALYSIS
In creating international land use designations, such as
Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage and RAMSAR Sites, through
Executive Branch action, the United States may be indirectly
implementing international treaties, such as the Convention on
Biological Diversity, to which the United States is not a party
or which the United States Senate has refused to ratify. For
example, the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve
Program published in 1994 by the U.S. State Department states
that a goal of the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program is to
``create a national network of biosphere reserves that
represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States
and fulfills the internationally established roles and
functions of biosphere reserves [emphasis added].''
Furthermore, the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, which
was adopted in late 1995 and establishes the international
goals of the Man and Biosphere Program, recommends that
participating countries ``integrate biosphere reserves in
strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use,
in plans for protected areas, and in the national biological
diversity, strategies and action plans provided for in Article
6 of the Convention on Biological diversity.''
Also disturbing is that designation of Biosphere Reserves
and World Heritage Sites rarely involve consulting the public
and local governments. In fact, UNESCO policy apparently
discourages an open nomination process for World Heritage
Sites. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention state:
``In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation
process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State
[national] parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the
fact that a property has been nominated for inscription pending the
final decision of the Committee on the nomination in question.
Participation of the local people in the nomination process is
essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State
party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future
decision-making by the committee.''
A number of local elected officials have testified in previous
oversight hearings that they were never consulted about plans to
designate Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites in their areas.
In making these international land designations, the United States
promises to protect designated areas and regulate surrounding lands if
necessary to protect the designated site. Honoring these agreements
could force the Federal Government to prohibit or limit some uses of
private lands outside the boundaries of the designated area unless our
country wants to break a pledge to other nations. At a minimum, this
puts U.S. land policy-makers in an awkward position. Federal regulatory
actions could cause a significant adverse impact on the value of
private property and on the local and regional economy. The involvement
of the World Heritage Committee in the Environmental Impact Statement
process for the New World Mine Project, which was located on privately
owned land near Yellowstone National Park, exemplifies this problem.
Creation of a buffer zone, possibly ten times as large as the park was
suggested by at least one member of the Committee.
It is clear from the Yellowstone example, that at best, World
Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve designations give the international
community an open invitation to interfere in domestic land use
decisions. More seriously, the underlying international land use
agreements potentially have several significant adverse effects on the
American system of government. The policy-making authority is farther
centralized at the Federal/Executive Branch level, and the role that
the ordinary citizen has in the making of this policy through their
elected representatives is diminished. The Executive Branch may also
invoke these agreements in an attempt to administratively achieve an
action within the jurisdiction of Congress, but without consulting
Congress.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Ten witnesses, including the Hon. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Ambassador
to the U.N. during President Reagan's Administration, will testify at
the legislative hearing on H.R. 883, at 1:30 p.m. on March 18, 1999.
For the Administration, Ms. Melinda L. Kimble, Acting Assistant
Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs, will testify on behalf of the State Department and
Ms. Kate Stevenson, Associate Director for Cultural Resources,
Stewardship and Partnership, National Park Service, will testify on
behalf of the Interior Department. Dr. Jeremy Rabkin, a professor in
the Department of Government at Cornell University, will discuss the
Constitutional problems with international agreements such as the
Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. Remaining witnesses include a former mining executive
associated with the New World Project, an Arizona rancher, a
representative from the Concerned Women for America, a representative
from a historical preservation group and a representative from a labor
organization.
Staff Contact: John Rishel (x60242).
______
Statement of Jeane Kirkpatrick, Leavey Professor, Georgetown
University, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
I thank the Committee for inviting me to comment on H.R. 883. My
comments will be brief and reflect my U.N. experience and reflection on
that experience.
1. I served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
at the time the United States made the decision to withdraw from
UNESCO. We made that decision slowly and carefully because the fraud,
waste and mismanagement of that organization had reached truly shocking
levels and resisted our serious efforts at reform. I note that neither
the Bush nor the Clinton Administration has proposed rejoining UNESCO.
(There is general agreement that very modest progress has been made in
UNESCO's practices.) The United States, however, continued to
participate in the Biosphere Reserve Program and the World Heritage
List Program sponsored by UNESCO.
2. I note that the United Nations is a highly political body in
which most countries act on most issues on the basis of group
identifications and blocs, (rather than a conception of a general
good). A large portion of the issues with which the U.N. deals pit
haves against have nots even though these dimensions have little
relevance to the issues at hand in any particular case. Most alignments
on most issues are highly unfavorable to the United States and there is
little we can do to change this. The most powerful, more less permanent
majority, is the bloc of less developed countries still usually called
the G-77. It's positions usually reflect ``Third World'' ideology. The
continuing influence of formerly colonial countries--United Kingdom,
France, Belgium, Netherlands--in these countries gives those
governments a substantially larger influence in and on the G-77 than
the United States. It is also worth noting that the European Union
itself constitutes a bloc of 16-17 members (votes) while the United
States is one. The point is that the United States has a permanent
disadvantage in U.N. arenas.
3. The 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage provides a system for international
recognition for sites of great cultural, historic or natural
significance. The World Heritage Committee developed a list of World
Heritage Sites of which there are now some four dozen sites in the
United States. Like the ``Man and the Biosphere Program,'' RAMSAR and
Biosphere Reserves, the World Heritage Sites are ``overseen'' by
UNESCO. These oversight functions are sometimes intrusive and these
programs have become very controversial, especially after the
involvement of the World Heritage Committee in the Crown Butte Mine
controversy by putting Yellowstone Park on its list of sites ``in
danger.''
Currently, over one hundred Congressmen have responded to this
growing controversy by sponsoring an ``American land Sovereignty
Protection Act,'' which will require that Congress approve on a case by
case basis international land designations in the United States,
restore Congressional oversight of these programs, protect the rights
of private owners since the Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S.
Constitution states: ``The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and
make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or
other Property belonging to the United States.''
At issue is who will decide, who should decide, and what would be
the consequences of giving Congress a larger role versus permitting the
role of UNESCO oversight in the United States to continue and to
continue to expand.
The Administration considers this legislation an unnecessary and
undesirable violation of international obligation; which have been
assumed and not compatible with sound conservation and environmental
policy.
Supporters of this legislation believe that it restores Congress'
constitutional role, protects property rights and American sovereignty,
and will result in a solid, sound environmental policy.
I agree. International committees--whatever the substance of their
decisions--do not represent the American people and cannot be held
accountable by them. They do not know American problems in detail, do
not feel the consequences of their decisions and suffer no penalties
for their mistakes. Nothing less than self-government and private
property are at stake.
______
Statement of Melinda L. Kimble, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,
Department of State
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on H.R. 883. I
am here today because this bill includes specific provisions relating
to oversight of the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage (known as ``the World Heritage Convention''), the
U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program (called ``U.S. MAB'') and also has
impact upon the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. These are initiatives
that the Department of State supports, either administratively or
financially, or both. They are components of the Administration's
international strategy for environmental diplomacy.
As you know, environmental issues form a cornerstone of United
States foreign policy. Modest investments on behalf of the environment,
at home and abroad, bring significant payoffs to our national economy,
health, domestic environment, and quality of life. In pursuing this
mandate, the United States has a strong policy of international
engagement on environmental issues. Secretary Albright has stated:
``Today, environmental issues are part of the mainstream of American
foreign policy.''
The World Heritage Convention and the U.S. Man and the Biosphere
Program contribute to this overall mission. Both function well, at
minimal cost and with minimal burden on our government and our
citizens. Aside from aiding in international environmental diplomacy
and providing a forum by which the United States has been able to
assert successfully influence and leadership, they provide economic
benefits to the U.S. (especially with regard to tourism), and our U.S.
Man and the Biosphere Program provides a valuable framework for
international scientific cooperation on the environment.
The Administration agrees that the public and the Congress have the
right to participate in decisions related to the nomination and
recognition process for World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves,
and should have a reasonable opportunity to do so. However, this
legislation also addresses concerns that are not grounded in the actual
provisions or implementation of these existing international agreements
or programs. This bill would take what is currently a bottom-up, grass-
roots approach and impose cumbersome top-down approval processes.
Therefore, the Department of State strongly opposes H.R. 883. If this
legislation were to pass, the Secretary of State would recommend a
veto.
World Heritage Convention
The Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage is a landmark conservation agreement that helps draw
international attention to the unique natural or cultural significance
of sites such as the Cathedral of Chartres, the Pyramids at Giza, the
Serengeti National Park, the Taj Mahal, and the Grand Canyon.
The United States was the principal architect of the Convention.
President Nixon stated at the time:
``It would befitting . . . for the nations of the world to agree to
the principle that there are certain areas of such unique worldwide
value that they should be treated as part of the heritage of all
mankind and accorded special recognition as a World Heritage Trust.
Such an arrangement would impose no limitations on the sovereignty of
those nations which choose to participate, but would extend special
international recognition to the areas which qualify and would make
available technical and other assistance to assist in their protection
and management.'' Statement by Richard Nixon, Feb. 8, 1971, in Dept. of
State Bulletin, Vol. LVIX, No. 1653, 1971, P. 256.
Following the conclusion of negotiations in 1972, the United States
became the first country to ratify the Convention, in December, 1973.
The U.S. plays a strong leadership role in the Convention and is
currently completing its second six-year term on the twenty-one member
World Heritage Committee.
The Convention respects the sovereignty of countries on whose
territory World Heritage sites are located. It makes clear that the
responsibility for identifying and delineating such sites rests with
the national governments that are Party to the Convention. It specifies
in article 6(l) that the international community's duty to cooperate
for the protection of world heritage occurs within a context of full
deference to ``the sovereignty of the . . . [nations] . . . on whose
territory the cultural and natural heritage'' is located, and ``without
prejudice to property rights provided by national legislation.''
The World Heritage Convention plays a key role in promoting global
support for environmental conservation and cultural preservation,
advances U.S. interests in these global values, and serves as a key
element in our international environmental conservation program. With
its 152 participating nations, the Convention is one of the most widely
accepted international conservation treaties. It provides a mechanism
for U.S. leadership and influence with many of its international
partners.
Under the World Heritage Convention, each nation nominates its own
most important natural and cultural sites and pledges to take the
necessary steps to preserve and protect them under their own legal
systems. The treaty, implementing legislation, and program regulations
mandate a process that is orderly, predictable, and exacting, requiring
a minimum of more than two years between the proposal of a site and its
consideration by the World Heritage Committee.
The U.S. nomination process is clearly delineated in law and
regulation (Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of
1980 and 36 CFR 73--World Heritage Convention). Under the regulations,
the National Park Service staffs the Interagency Panel on World
Heritage, which is advisory to and chaired by the Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. The Panel meets in public sessions to
consider proposed nominations and to review completed studies.
Relevant Committees of the House and Senate are notified of all
pending proposals and are again informed when the Department of the
Interior has decided to nominate a site. Over the years, when Members
of Congress have commented, they have commonly supported proposed
nominations in their respective states.
U.S. Man and The Biosphere Program
The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program was established by
resolution of the 16th General Conference of UNESCO in 1971 as a
voluntary and cooperative science program to promote the study of the
interaction of the earth's human and natural systems. Contrary to the
assertions of many opponents of the program, MAB is intended to explore
the relationship between people and their environment and not to remove
people from their land.
The U.S. began to participate in MAB in 1974. When the U.S. left
UNESCO in 1984, the Reagan Administration recommended that Congress
continue to provide funds to allow for an independent U.S. Man and the
Biosphere Program, given the benefits of voluntary scientific
cooperation. This was done with the understanding that there would be
continued cooperation as appropriate between U.S. MAB and the UNESCO
MAB Program.
In this capacity the U.S. MAB Program continues today, pursuing
national and international efforts in cooperative environmental
science. The Department of State provides a small administrative
Secretariat to coordinate the U.S. Man and the Biosphere program, with
the voluntary collaboration and support of about a dozen Federal
agencies.
At the international level, U.S. MAB promotes pairings of biosphere
reserves for comparative study. On a regional scale, cooperation among
biosphere reserves is facilitating scientific and technical exchanges
that benefit both scientists and land managers. For example, in the
tri-national region of the Petan Rainforest of Mexico, Guatemala and
Belize, U.S. MAB supports efforts that bring park managers and
scientists together across boundaries to deal with common conservation
issues. In Kentucky, county land managers and development authorities
utilize the biosphere reserve to protect water quality in Mammoth Cave
National Park and the surrounding area.
The U.S. MAB Program promotes information sharing among MAB sites
around the world. U.S. MAB's various software innovations have been
adopted in North America, Europe, and Latin America. MABFauna and
MABFlora are highly successful database products produced by U.S. MAB
for sharing information about plants and animals in protected areas.
Another initiative, MABNet Americas, was highlighted by the Bolivia
Summit on Sustainable Development as a model for integrated scientific
data exchange in this hemisphere. These U.S. MAB efforts towards data
standardization are an important contribution to the on-going
development of the InterAmerican Biodiversity Information Network
(IABIN) and network through which biological information is shared
throughout the Western Hemisphere.
U.S. biosphere reserves are an important part of the U.S. MAB
Program. However, we recognize there has been considerable confusion
about the definition of a biosphere reserve. ``Biosphere reserve'' is a
title granted to a protected area or series of protected areas that
conduct exemplary programs in conservation, science, and management of
natural resources. Biosphere reserves foster cooperation and voluntary
implementation of activities that improve the relationship among
communities, economic enterprises, and those who manage natural
resources. Although U.S. biosphere reserves take various forms, the
typical U.S. biosphere reserve is synonymous with a national park or
national forest. However, private conservation organizations and even a
private landowner have sought biosphere reserve status for their lands.
The added recognition as a biosphere reserve provides national and
international prestige. At present there are 47 biosphere reserves in
the United States.
At this time, nominations for U.S. biosphere reserves are initiated
at the local level by volunteers who form a committee to seek
international recognition for their conservation efforts. Letters of
concurrence are generated by local interest groups and local and state
government representatives; these letters must be attached to each
nomination package. Landowner approval is required for a property to be
included. Participation in the U.S. Biosphere Reserve program is
voluntary and does not alter the rights of private landowners or those
of local, state, or national land management authorities.
The global network of biosphere reserves includes areas where
national and local commitments have been made to long-term
environmental monitoring, interdisciplinary research, and environmental
education. As with World Heritage and Ramsar wetlands sites, the MAB
sites in the U.S. are managed under the relevant Federal and/or state
laws and regulations. There is no international regulatory framework.
The day-to-day management of these areas does not change because of
Biosphere Reserve recognition.
MAB activities that further U.S. interests include projects that:
Brought together policy makers, social scientists and
natural scientists to produce specific strategies for restoring
a healthy Everglades while also preserving the social and
economic structures of South Florida.
Fostered an agreement signed by former Governor
Symington of Arizona in 1996 and his counterpart from the
adjacent Mexican state of Sonora, Manlio Beltrones to promote
cooperation between the protected areas of the region.
Developed a local tourism plan for the Southern
Appalachian Biosphere Reserve which benefited the community of
Pittman Center, Tennessee.
Played a key role in the effort to restore the Coho
salmon to areas of Northern California through the Golden Gate
Biosphere Reserve.
Continuing international collaborations (mainly with nations in
Latin America, Europe, and the Newly Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union) are of importance to the Department of State because they
further the Administration's goal of fostering wise environmental
stewardship around the world while at the same time strengthening
relations between the U.S. and key counterpart nations. The Man and the
Biosphere Program has a significant role here, especially in
international scientific exchange.
H.R. 883
H.R. 883, like its predecessors H.R. 901 and S. 691, appears to be
based on the mistaken belief that the World Heritage Convention and the
U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program threaten U.S. sovereignty, mandate
land-use regimes, restrict the rights of private landowners or exclude
the public from the nomination and recognition process. The main
purpose of World Heritage and the MAB Biosphere Reserve Program is to
award recognition to sites of exceptional ecological, scientific, or
cultural importance. Neither program regulates the management of these
sites nor affects the land-use rights of the country in which they are
located.
H.R. 883 seeks to legislate the process of nomination of World
Heritage or Biosphere Reserve sites. In fact, local initiative already
plays a key role in the nomination process for U.S. sites, involving
local stakeholders, state and local governments, and the Federal
Government. As mentioned earlier, the nomination process for World
Heritage Sites is clearly delineated in law and regulation and includes
full and appropriate public and congressional participation. This
legislation could pose an unwarranted barrier to site nominations by
local communities.
The process of Biosphere Reserve recognition and the functioning of
recognized Biosphere Reserves is increasingly based on consultation and
initiative of local stakeholders, state, and local governments. We
believe these initiatives work well and with ample local involvement.
In the Catskills there was disagreement about biosphere reserve
nomination and as a result the nomination was duly withdrawn. In the
Ozarks, there was citizen concern over nomination, and, again, it
proceeded no further. The State Department has not received a single
letter from any state governor or any local elected official requesting
the abolition or de-listing of any U.S. biosphere reserve or World
Heritage site. Also, we have not received any letters or studies
documenting that any past listing of a biosphere reserve or World
Heritage site has harmed the value of adjacent private property.
It is clear, however, that MAB is often misunderstood. We are
committed to both clarifying the program's operations and ensuring
appropriate public and congressional notification and consultation
during the nomination process. We believe that the bill, H.R. 1801,
introduced in the 105th Congress by Congressmen George Brown and George
Miller, addresses these issues and provides a good legislative base for
improved functioning of U.S. MAB.
Moreover, section 5 of H.R. 883 restricts international agreements
generally, with respect to the nomination, classification, or
designation of Federal lands for conservation purposes. The effects of
this more general section are difficult to evaluate. We are concerned
that, given the provision's current breadth, it would likely have
unintended impacts that could hamper the United States' ability to
fully participate in existing bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Specifically, we are concerned about the effect of this section on
U.S. implementation of and participation in the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands. President Reagan submitted this Convention to the Senate,
which provided advice and consent to ratification in 1986. The
Convention reflects a broad-based concern over the loss of wetland
habitats and their dependent resources, and recognition of their vital
role in preservation of migratory birds.
Our membership and international participation in the Ramsar
Convention provides many benefits. Most prominent is reinforcement of
the protection of a whole range of wetland-loving migratory birds,
including many important game species (ducks, geese, coots, rails,
etc.). The network of Ramsar sites in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico
supports safe breeding and wintering sites for these waterfowl and
gamebirds--birds that generate significant income in the U.S. through
hunting related enterprises as well as those associated with nature
appreciation and bird watching.
Like the World Heritage Convention, the Ramsar Convention makes
clear that the responsibility for identifying and for protecting
wetlands of international importance that are suitable for listing
under the Convention rests with the country in whose territory the site
is located. It also states that the inclusion of a wetland in the
Ramsar list, ``does not prejudice the exclusive sovereign rights of the
Contracting Party in whose territory the wetland is situated.'' There
are currently 17 designated Ramsar sites in the United States.
Conclusion:
We believe that U.S. participation in the World Heritage
Convention, the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program and the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands serve important national interests and help link
national and international initiatives with local stakeholders.
Recognition of Everglades National Park as a World Heritage site, as a
biosphere reserve and as a Ramsar site has added no management
restrictions and yet has provided worldwide recognition that is a
source of pride and additional economic opportunity to the local
communities. Moreover, U.S. leadership in the World Heritage
Convention, the Man and the Biosphere Program, and the Ramsar
Convention encourages other nations to similarly cherish and care for
significant sites in their countries.
In conclusion, the Department of State strongly opposes H.R. 883.
Recognition of a U.S. site as a World Heritage site, a biosphere
reserve or a Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance in no way
undermines U.S. sovereignty over such sites. Such recognition does not
impose additional Federal land use restrictions over such areas or the
abutting region. H.R. 883 would create unnecessary bureaucratic burdens
on U.S. government agencies and would impose top-down controls on what
is currently a bottoms-up nomination process. We believe this
legislation runs counter to the U.S. role in supporting both local and
global environmental cooperation. This bill would greatly impede the
nomination of new sites under the World Heritage Convention, biosphere
reserves under the MAB Program and Wetlands of International Importance
under the Ramsar Convention.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to take
any questions that you may have.
______
Statement of Brooks B. Yeager, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
and International Affairs, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 883, the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act. The chief effect of this legislation would be to place
cumbersome and unwise restrictions on U.S. participation in the World
Heritage Convention and other international conservation agreements.
Ironically, these agreements were, in many cases, the product of U.S.
world conservation leadership and have been supported by Presidents of
both parties going back to President Nixon. Through them, the United
States has been successful in engaging many other nations of the world
in the effort to establish and protect national parks and to better
conserve unique and important natural and cultural resources worldwide.
The restrictions on participation and the burdensome new requirements
of H.R. 883 appear to be a response to worries that these agreements in
some way diminish U.S. sovereignty over our own parks and refuges--but
nothing could be further from the truth. Because the restrictions of
H.R. 883 are unnecessary, and would unwisely weaken the worldwide
conservation leadership and influence that the United States has
earned, we must strongly oppose this bill. If this legislation were to
pass, the Secretary of the Interior would recommend a veto.
U.S. participation in the World Heritage Convention and other
international conservation agreements has benefited parks and adjacent
communities and has been helpful to U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Both the idea of national parks and the World Heritage Convention,
originating a century apart, are American ideas that are universally
acclaimed and accepted worldwide. Their international acceptance is a
continuous affirmation of the United States' prestige and global
influence. U.S. participation in international conservation agreements
insures that these ideals continue to extend their reach and also that
U.S. sites receive the prestige and recognition they deserve, on par
with that enjoyed internationally by the Great Pyramids of Egypt,
Victoria Falls, the Serengeti Plain, and Vatican City.
World Heritage designation does not impose any particular new
management requirements; it often presents new opportunities. In
Hawaii, the World Heritage designation of Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park is serving as the linchpin in a strategy to draw more tourists to
the island, and is an element of the town of Volcano's strategic
planning. At Wrangell-St. Elias and Glacier Bay, two parks that are
listed jointly with Canadian parks across the border, World Heritage
designation has resulted in direct cooperation with Canada on mountain
rescue, managing traffic, and rescue operations on the Alsek River. The
Reagan administration recognized the value of such designations when it
chose to highlight one of its major initiatives in private-sector
fundraising for parks--the restoration of the Statue of Liberty--by
nominating the Statue to the World Heritage List in 1984.
H.R. 883 attempts to fix alleged problems that do not exist.
American sovereignty is not at risk. First, international agreements,
such as the World Heritage Convention, do not in any way exclude
Congress from exercising oversight of land management decisions, nor
could they ever do so. Second, the nomination processes for the various
international conservation designations are generally consultative and
are based on conservation measures already in place at the local level.
Third, land-use decisions pertaining to internationally recognized
sites remain the sole responsibility of the sovereign nation in which
the site is located. In the United States, such decisions fall under
the jurisdiction of the appropriate Federal, state, or local
governments, tribes, or private property owners, and are subject to the
domestic laws already in place.
The designation of sites under the World Heritage Convention and
other such agreements has no more effect on national law in the U.S. or
elsewhere, than does the winning of a Nobel Prize or an Olympic Medal.
The United Nations does not gain any authority to dictate land-
management decisions in any country or at any level. This
Administration has no intention to cede sovereignty over U.S. lands to
international organizations; neither did the five previous
administrations, both Republican and Democratic, which have all
participated enthusiastically in the international conservation
agreements targeted by this bill.
Nor is there any evidence that international recognition restricts
land use or stops economic growth. To the contrary, World Heritage
sites, U.S. Biosphere Reserves, and Ramsar designations have been
embraced in many local areas of the U.S. as value-added designations,
which increase partnerships among Federal, state and local governments,
and private property owners for mutual benefit. Additionally, they have
contributed to increases in tourism, which is especially vital to local
economies, and have fostered research on important environmental
problems.
Rather than being harmful to local and community interests, a World
Heritage designation appears to be economically beneficial to those
near designated sites, especially an attraction for foreign tourists.
During the period 1990-1995, visitation to U.S. World Heritage parks
increased 9.4 percent, as opposed to a 4.2 percent increase for all
national parks. There is evidence to suggest that a significant part of
the increase derived from increased international tourism; World
Heritage designation makes it more likely that foreign visitors,
especially those with specialized interests, will learn about and visit
the parks.
For example, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park reports that an
increase in foreign visitation from Europe, currently at 10 percent,
may be due to its World Heritage designation. Grand Canyon National
Park, where foreign visitation is roughly 40 percent, reports that
foreign visitation is more likely as a result of a World Heritage
designation than to an individual nation's ``national park''
designation. Given that the total economic benefit of the Grand Canyon
to the surrounding region is estimated at $350 to $700 million per
year, the impact of the World Heritage designation is clearly salutary
there.
H.R. 883
H.R. 883 would unduly restrict the legal and administrative
framework for implementation of important U.S. commitments to
international environmental cooperation, which have traditionally
enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and the Executive Branch. It
would also allow those who oppose cooperative efforts in international
conservation on ideological grounds to block the efforts of communities
to utilize these agreements for their own benefit. Section 3 of the
bill would amend the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, to require express authorization by Congress of each future
nomination of Federal sites for inclusion in the World Heritage List.
It would also instruct the Secretary of the Interior to object to the
inclusion of any property (including private lands) in the U.S. on the
List of World Heritage in Danger, absent authorization by a Joint
Resolution of Congress. Section 4 would establish a similar
congressional authorization process for biosphere reserve designations.
It would prohibit the nomination of new biosphere reserves for
international recognition under UNESCO and void the designation of all
existing biosphere reserves unless authorizing legislation is passed by
December 31, 2000. The bill unnecessarily encumbers what are now
modest, grass roots-based programs that fulfill our commitment to
environmental stewardship in the world.
The amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, that
would be made under Section 3, would require the Secretary of the
Interior to make a determination of any adverse effects on commercially
viable uses should an area be nominated as a World Heritage site or be
placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The adverse effects
must be considered for lands being nominated or listed and also for all
lands within 10 miles of the area. However, since designating an area
as a World Heritage site or listing it as ``in danger'' does not change
U.S. law, nor impose land-use restrictions, the designation cannot
adversely affect commercially viable uses. Also, sections 3 and 4 of
the bill set additional reporting requirements for all areas that have
been recognized as World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves. This is
a burdensome and unnecessary requirement and flies in the face of
recent congressional action to eliminate unneeded reports to Congress.
With respect to the legal effect of the World Heritage Convention,
the Congressional Research Service said in its May 3, 1996 report,
``World Heritage Convention and U.S. National Parks,'' that: ``The
Convention has no role or authority beyond listing sites and offering
technical advice and assistance.'' The clear understanding that the
Convention carries no land management authority or obligation goes back
to President Nixon's statement on the issue.
The case of ``biosphere reserves'' established in connection with
UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere program similarly admits no
international control of U.S. lands. Indeed, the charter document for
the UNESCO program clearly states that, ``Biosphere Reserves, each of
which remain under the sole sovereignty of the State where it is
situated and thereby submitted to State legislation only, form a world
network in which participation by States is voluntary.'' (As used in
this quote the word ``State'' refers to sovereign nations.)
World Heritage
The World Heritage Convention, a foreign policy initiative of the
Nixon Administration, has been a cornerstone of U.S. international
environmental foreign policy for a quarter century. The U.S. played a
notable leadership role in drafting the Convention and was the first
signatory in 1973. The Senate ratified the Treaty by a margin of 95-0.
Although 156 nations now participate, the U.S. has continued its
leadership role, twice serving as chair, and currently completing a
second consecutive 6-year term on the World Heritage Committee.
It is noteworthy that, although the Reagan Administration chose to
withdraw the United States from UNESCO, that Administration opted to
remain active in World Heritage and promulgated the program
regulations, still in force, that made the program fully operative in
the U.S. Under President Bush, in 1992, Secretary of the Interior
Manuel Lujan hosted the meeting of the World Heritage Committee, in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, the second time in the Committee's more than 20
years of active work that it met in the U.S.
Under the World Heritage Convention, each nation nominates its own
most important natural and cultural sites and agrees to take the
necessary steps to preserve and protect them under its own legal
systems. In fact, a nation can only nominate a site within its own
border and no nation can nominate a site in another nation. The treaty,
implementing legislation, and program regulations mandate a process
that is orderly, predictable, and exacting, requiring a minimum of more
than two years between the proposal of a site for study and its
consideration by the World Heritage Committee.
The U.S. nomination process is completely voluntary and clearly
delineated in law and regulation (Title IV of the Historic Preservation
Act Amendments of 1980 and 36 CFR Part 73). Under the regulations, the
National Park Service staffs the Interagency Panel on World Heritage,
which is advisory to and chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks. The Panel meets in public sessions to consider
proposed nominations and to review completed studies. Proposals to
nominate sites have originated from private organizations and citizens
and local governments as well as from park superintendents. Every
proposed nomination must have a strictly defined boundary. The criteria
and documentation requirements for nomination are highly selective;
many proposed properties have been turned down or deferred for cause.
Relevant committees of the House and Senate are notified of all pending
proposals and again informed when the Department has decided to
nominate a property. Over the years, when Members of Congress have
commented on proposed sites, they have overwhelmingly supported
proposed nominations in their respective states. This existing
congressional input has worked very well. No site has been nominated if
its nomination did not enjoy overwhelming support from both local
leaders and the State's congressional delegation.
Since 1979, when Yellowstone and Mesa Verde were placed on the
World Heritage List, 18 other U.S. sites have been added, for a total
of 20. A handful of others have been nominated but not listed. No new
proposed nominations are being actively considered. The World Heritage
Committee, composed of representatives elected from 21 member
countries, reviews all national nominations. At present, 582 properties
have been listed. The Committee also places properties on the List of
World Heritage in Danger. Only the Committee can place properties on
either List. Neither listing as a World Heritage Site nor inclusion on
the List of World Heritage in Danger supersedes or diminishes United
States sovereignty. Neither imposes any legal requirement for U.S.
sites beyond those already contained in U.S. law. The World Heritage
Committee does not acquire management authority over World Heritage
Sites by virtue of any listing.
The U.S. World Heritage nomination process is fully respectful of
private property rights. Affirmative concurrence is required from all
non-Federal owners before properties can be nominated for inclusion on
the World Heritage List. The two private U.S. properties on the World
Heritage List are Monticello and Taos Pueblo. Three other properties in
the United States or Puerto Rico are on the World Heritage List. These
are the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia owned by
the Commonwealth of Virginia and Cahokia Mounds and La Fortaleza in San
Juan, Puerto Rico owned by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The
nominations for all these sites enjoyed the full support of all
relevant stakeholders.
U.S. Biosphere Reserves
Though the Department of the Interior plays a leading role for the
U.S. under the World Heritage Convention, it plays a cooperative role
in our participation in the Man and the Biosphere Program. As with
World Heritage Sites, the designation and management of U.S. Biosphere
Reserves provide benefits from international recognition, and allow
U.S. sites to be linked to a global network for cooperation in science,
education, and technical assistance. Recognition does not pose a threat
to the sovereignty of American lands, it does not impose new management
requirements on public lands, and it does not impose new land-use or
regulatory restrictions on private property owners. In addition,
designation does not imply any intent on the part of the Federal
Government to acquire property in the surrounding area.
There are 47 designated biosphere reserves in the United States.
Biosphere reserves represent purely voluntary commitments on the part
of land managers to emphasize conservation, science and education as
they seek solutions to issues of conservation and development in
cooperation with local residents, governments, and other parties in
their region. The purposes of these associations are to facilitate the
discovery of practical solutions to complex conservation and
development problems by providing a science-based framework for
pursuing common goals. This cooperative setting allows each party to
share resource and economic expertise that no one group could obtain on
its own. Biosphere reserve recognition is proposed by local entities,
in consultation with local governments and other interested parties.
Approval by landowners, public and private, is required. As a matter of
practice, when such proposals appear to have been developed without
sufficient local consultation, or where local opposition is obvious,
they have been returned with guidance regarding the need for local
support.
Mammoth Cave is a good example of this program. The Mammoth Cave
Area Biosphere Reserve was designated in 1990 and includes Mammoth Cave
National Park and its primary groundwater recharge basins. The Barren
River Area Development District (BRADD), which is chartered by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky and is responsible for regional planning
within the ten-county area surrounding Mammoth Cave, selected the U.S.
biosphere reserve model as the tool to address regional water quality
issues. The biosphere reserve activities are coordinated through the
BRADD, whose Board of Directors is made up of locally elected
officials, and is viewed as a locally managed effort rather than a
Federal undertaking. To coordinate resource management activities, the
BRADD established a Biosphere Reserve Council which consists of Western
Kentucky University, USDA Forest Service, USDA Farm Service Agency,
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Tennessee Valley Authority,
U.S. Economic Development Administration, Army Corps of Engineers,
agencies of the Kentucky Natural Resources Cabinet, the Resource
Conservation and Development District, the Caveland Sanitation
District, and the National Park Service. Together, these previously
unlikely partners have made significant accomplishments that have
directly benefited the area. These accomplishments include:
The Mammoth Cave Area Water Quality Project--A partnership
approach to protecting the Mammoth Cave Watershed, which
includes significant financial resources available to farmers
from the USDA on a cost-sharing basis, significant investment
by the NPS for monitoring, and support from the EPA to continue
this effort.
Regional GIS/GPS and Development of a Geospatial Data
Center--Members of the Biosphere Reserve Council have pooled
their resources to enhance data sharing and analysis capability
and to establish a geographic information system and global
positioning base station which has a variety of applications of
benefit to all members. Additionally, a grant from the U.S.
Geological Survey has established a Geospatial Data Center at
Western Kentucky University.
Economic Development and Impact Studies--The Economic
Development Administration funded a study in the area to assess
the potential for compatible industrial development. The
results of this study have been made available to the community
to assist in economic and infrastructure planning. Also, the
USGS in partnership with local universities is working on an
economic impact study of the park and local area to assess the
impact of tourism expenditures.
The Mammoth Cave Area Biosphere Reserve, with the national park as
its core protected area, has therefore utilized its stature to better
address local conservation and development issues, including securing
additional financial resources not previously available. Landowners and
communities have derived tangible benefits and received recognition for
working together to resolve complex conservation and development issues
and protect resource values. A survey of biosphere reserve managers in
1995 suggests that, in cases where their cooperative endeavors are
identified explicitly with the biosphere reserve concept, there are
more cooperating parties and more participation of local organizations
than in other types of cooperative efforts.
Biosphere Reserves are also important internationally because they
provide a network of protected areas, particularly essential as
stopovers for migratory birds that U.S. shares with other nations. For
example, Mexico's newly created Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve in the
Yucatan Peninsula provides wintering habitat for species seen during
the summer in the United States, many of which are in decline because
of habitat loss. Each year more than 65 million Americans watch and
feed birds and more than 25 million Americans travel away from their
homes specifically to watch birds. These bird-watching Americans spend
$5.2 billion annually, generating an annual total economic return to
the U.S. economy of nearly $20 billion. U.S. citizens also are frequent
visitors to internationally recognized sites of other countries.
American businesses directly benefit from this visitation of U.S.
citizens to foreign countries, as they operate tour companies that
frequent biosphere reserve sites abroad.
RAMSAR
Finally, Section 5 of the bill restricts international agreements
in general with respect to the nomination, classification or
designation of Federal lands for conservation purposes. This general
language will have a detrimental effect on the United States ability to
provide world leadership in environmental conservation efforts.
Specifically, it will hamper the U.S. ability to implement the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands, an international agreement submitted by
President Reagan in 1986, that recognizes the vital role wetlands play
in local communities for water quality, migratory bird habitat and
aesthetic and recreational enjoyment.
Designations of appropriate sites as ``wetlands of international
importance'' under the Ramsar Convention have been a positive force for
conservation of these sites. Since the Convention was ratified in 1986,
17 sites have been designated, all at the request of the local
communities where the sites occur. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the agency which oversees the Ramsar Convention, does not actively seek
out and designate Ramsar sites, one of the reasons that the
implementation of the Convention in the United States has been
successful without major controversies. The Service considers educating
and informing citizens about the Convention a starting point; then the
genesis of a nomination must begin with the community. This approach
sparks interest by citizens, helps bring a community together, and
builds support for a nomination. Sometimes it can develop partnerships
between unlikely groups. Citizens take pride in their special places
and international recognition can only improve this pride.
A number of States and local communities have used designation as a
means of enhancing locally based conservation and economic efforts. A
review conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1996 found a
number of positive values from Ramsar designations, all as a result of
the voluntary, cooperative spirit in which designations are made. For
example, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection noted
that Ramsar designation has been used as a non-regulatory tool to
achieve wetland protections, and found a significant increase in
tourism to designated sites, increasing local revenue. On the Lower
Connecticut River, the State of Connecticut found that their
designation of the lower Connecticut River wetlands complex as a Ramsar
site has had a positive impact upon property values. Realtors are
actively using this designation to attract buyers to abutting
properties and the sale prices for these lands have increased. The
State expects to see a positive impact on the tax base for Connecticut
River townships from the Ramsar designation. And in Southern Illinois,
the local communities are depending on the Ramsar designation of the
unique cypress and tupelo swamps on the Cache River to help draw
tourists and improve the economic viability of this depressed region.
Policy and guidelines for nomination of sites to the List of
Wetlands of International Importance was published in a Federal
Register Notice dated April 12, 1990, Vol. 55, No. 77. This action was
taken in accordance with the articles of the Convention. These
guidelines are needed to (1) assure that petitions for listing are
consistent with the Convention's criteria and obligations, and (2)
allow mechanisms for appropriate review of proposed site nominations.
It is important to note that Article 2, Part 3, of the Convention
document specifically states ``the inclusion of a wetland in the List
does not prejudice the exclusive sovereign rights of the Contracting
Party in whose territory the wetland is situated.''
The Fish and Wildlife Service will continue its policy to consider
proposed sites only if (1) there is concurrence from the State,
Commonwealth, or Territory where the site is located; (2) the ownership
rights of the lands being considered are free from encumbrances or
dispute; and (3) the lands are in public or private management that is
conducive with the conservation of wetlands. In all cases where private
lands are involved, endorsement of a potential listing by the
landowners is mandatory. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
made it a requirement for all nominating organizations to provide
written approval from the appropriate member(s) of the Congressional
Delegation.
The Administration believes that the requirement under H.R. 883
that would require Congressional approval for listing sites under the
Convention on Wetlands would substantially delay the benefits which
designation of sites under the Convention can bring and would make the
process much more time-consuming and bureaucratic. It would also remove
the locally driven designation process and replace it with a
prescriptive Federal process if the entire Congress would have to
approve every designation. Why should a member from New York be able to
deny a Ramsar designation from a community in Texas that is seeking the
designation? On the other hand, the required approvals from any private
property owner(s), the State, Commonwealth, or Territory in which the
property resides, and the Congressional delegation, should ensure that
citizens directly effected by a designation are supportive and make a
formal Congressional approval process unnecessary.
Conclusion:
International site recognitions such as World Heritage and U.S.
Biosphere Reserves do not threaten U.S. sovereignty or interests.
Rather, they enhance the prestige and recognition of areas already
protected under domestic law and provide economic benefits to
communities that benefit from being internationally recognized. The
``national park'' idea was something inherently American that has been
extended internationally through these programs; to inhibit them would
be a disservice to this idea in the United States and would diminish
U.S. influence abroad. We strongly believe that the United States
should continue to play a leading role in these worldwide efforts that
benefit the citizens and the environment of both our nation and of the
entire world.
This concludes my prepared remarks.
______
Statement of Stephen G. Lindsey, Canelo, Arizona
Hello, my name is Steve Lindsey, and I live in Canelo, Arizona.
Canelo is located in Southeastern Arizona on the west side of the
Huachuca Mountains, about 14 miles north of the Mexican border. My
mother, my father, my wife and I and nine children make up the
population of Canelo.
My great-great grandfather came to this area in the late 1860's. He
homesteaded in what is now called Parker Canyon, which is 10 miles to
the south of Canelo.
His son, my great-grandfather, homesteaded in Canelo on Turkey
Creek in 1910. He started running his cattle on the creek at that time,
but prior to that, the country was considered open range and had
supported cattle from the early 1800's.
My father and I are still operating a cow-calf operation on that
same homestead, along with the help of my sons and daughters. The
private property that we own lies in Turkey Creek, and 320 acres
private are deeded land. Probably 60 acres of that is all that would be
considered a wetlands. The vision most people, especially in the east,
have of a creek is very different from that in the arid Southwest.
Turkey Creek, known as a ``cienega'' which means wetland in Spanish,
only has flowing water four months of the year. Most of the cienga is
actually a bog with little standing water, but the soil is saturated.
There are a few cottonwood and willow trees along the cienega with a
few ephemeral springs that I call wet weather springs because they are
only evident after the spring and summer rains.
The deeded land we own is also the property we legally need to own
in order to qualify for a U.S. Forest Service grazing lease on about
11,500 acres.
So all together my family has been operating a successful cattle
ranch on Turkey Creek for 87 years. We hope to keep this a way of life
for years to come, not only to keep the land in the family, but to
supply a commodity, our beef calves, to the nation. My three sons and
two of my daughters have shown an active interest in the cattle
operation, especially my oldest son who is with me quite consistently
on the land learning about the grasses and continuing the process to
show that we don't so much raise beef as we raise the grass to support
the beef. I want my children in the type of lifestyle that promotes the
character of living off the land and how we must be self sufficient,
hard working, moral and ethical in all of our dealings. Without this
land we would be forced to live in the city and rear our children in an
environment that I don't feel is the best for their learning and young
adulthood.
I have heard that in some family businesses that after the founders
die the second generation either is not committed to the business or
does not have the knowledge to run the business and make it
economically viable. But in the ranching industry this does not seem to
be the case. Ranches such as ours have been passed on from generation
to generation and kept as viable businesses, operations and ways of
life. My children, who without this ranch, would not have the work
ethics they have and would not be active in their desire to keep not
only the environment healthy, but also 320 intact and not subdivide it.
On June 3, 1993 the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
(SWCBD) petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the
Canelo Hills ladies tresses (Spiranthes Delitesens) as an endangered
species. Then in 1995 SWCBD sued U.S. Fish and Wildlife to list the
ladies tresses.
These plants seem to require a perpetually moist soil, and are
reported to grow in five known places, all of them in Southeastern
Arizona. One of these places is Turkey Creek, on my family's private
property.
The ladies tresses was listed this year on January 6, 1997. The
SWCBD states that cattle grazing may damage the ladies tresses, when in
fact, even the Federal Register (Vol. 62, No. 3, January 6, 1997)
states that the Canelo Hills ladies tresses grow much better where the
cattle have disturbed the land. These plants only flower in July and
August when the rains come, and that is the same time that we have
moved our cattle, on a rotational basis, to the pastures out the
riparian area where the tresses flower. We manage our cattle on
rotation. We do this so that the cattle will not be in the same
pastures more than once in any given year. We practice this rotation
method because cattle will find a locale and stay there if we don't
move them. Rotating them ensures healthy pastures and a healthy
environment.
We have a film from the 1940's of our land, but there is much more
willow and cottonwood growth and regeneration now than there was then.
We know that our good management practices on the practices on the
ranch and using a holistic resource management system to rejuvenate the
riparian area have been very successful.
Sam Spiller, Arizona state supervisor for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, said at a U.S. Forest Service permitee meeting in the old
Canelo school house on Saturday May 17, 1997 that he wasn't sure the
reason why there were so many endangered species in Southeastern
Arizona. I felt like telling him that the that the reason we have these
endangered species is because we still have the open areas and habitat
where these species can live. But endangered species are scarce or do
not live in areas that have already been developed like Phoenix and
Tucson. It is because people like myself and my family and the past
generations have chosen to continue to ranch and uphold a way of life
that has virtually disappeared and been paved over in the larger urban
areas. Because we have chosen this way of life and because I have a
strong desire to pass this way of life on to my children and leave this
land open and undeveloped that I feel I am being singled out. There is
a potential threat that I will be punished for the choices my family
has made. I hope that this does not happen and we can continue ranching
this land as we have for 5 generations.
Furthermore, the Canelo Hills ladies tresses on our private
property in Turkey Creek are doing much better than the ladies tresses
on the The Nature Conservancy (TNC) property in O'Donnel Canyon, one
mile west of our property. Dr. Peter Warren, a botanist with TNC,
specifically told me that the population of tresses on our property are
doing much better than does on TNC's land in O'Donnel Canyon. The
ladies tresses on TNC property are not grazed.
The benefit of grazing was also noted in the Federal Register rule
(Vol. 62, No. 3, p.677) listing the ladies tresses: ``Discussions of
well-managed livestock grazing and Spiranthes presented in the proposed
rule did not indicate a detrimental effect. The Service stated that our
preliminary conclusion is that well-managed livestock grazing does not
harm Spiranthes populations. Additionally, the Service acknowledges
that Spiranthes may favor some form of mild disturbance and would not
recommend the removal of grazing as a component of responsible
stewardship.''
When I heard the ladies tresses was proposed to be listed I was
very concerned that the Federal Government would be able to put
restrictions on our private property and on our cattle operation. But I
was reassured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that there would be
no detrimental impacts to our way of life. I was not reassured (are you
ever reassured when the government says ``don't worry''?). In fact I
was very concerned because I am very well aware of implications of the
Endangered Species Act and how it has restricted land use of private
property owners, especially across the west. I feared that I would lose
my way of life and no longer be able to operate the cattle ranch and
operate it as generations had done in the past and also pass it on to
my children.
Then just 22 days after the listing of the ladies tresses I learned
that the SWCBD decided to use a little known international wetlands
treaty to designate our 60 acre wetland as a wetland of international
significance under the RAMSAR convention. I very much in shock at how
quickly the SWCBD, the same group that petitioned to have the ladies
tresses listed, then tried to use an international treaty to influence
or control the uses of our land. Kieran Suckling of SWCBD said, in a
newspaper article in the Arizona Republic on February 1, 1997, ``By
protecting these Arizona wetlands through the RAMSAR Convention, we get
international oversight.'' This scared me when I read this article
knowing that I might not only be regulated by the state and Federal
Government because of the endangered ladies tresses orchid but now
because of an international treaty to protect wetlands. Now I feared
that there would global oversight of my small piece of land.
My first thoughts went then to the pledge of Allegiance that we are
a nation indivisible and that this sovereign nation would be governed
by other countries and their governments. I feared greatly not only for
my family but also for the families in the United States that would be
affected in coming years by the lack of sovereignty that this
convention represented. Sovereignty is what has made this nation great
and strong for over 200 years, and that is why I cherish my and my
family's freedom and rights that the Constitution of the United States
has promised us.
In the small amount of information I have been able to obtain on
the RAMSAR convention I have learned some interesting facts. The
convention was signed in February 1971 in Ramsar, Iran and 93 countries
have joined the convention. Over 800 wetlands covering over 500,000
square kilometers (which is the size of France) have been designated
under the convention.
I have also taken a look at the convention's Strategic Plan for
1997-2002. It states that official name of the treaty is ``Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl
Habitat.'' The only time I see waterfowl on my land is in the fall and
spring when they are migrating for four weeks in each season. I see at
most 25 ducks at any one time but the average number of ducks I see is
around 6. I would hardly see my land as wetlands of international
importance especially for waterfowl habitat. I think it is ridiculous
that my land is being considered for designation under this treaty. I
do understand that the Chesapeake Bay is under the same convention, and
I think anyone will agree that the Chesapeake Bay is a wetlands of
international importance for waterfowl, unlike my 60 acres in
Southeastern Arizona.
The Plan's Action 5.2.5 says, ``Promote the establishment and
implementation of strict protection measures certain Ramsar sites and
other wetlands of small size and/or particular sensitivity.'' That is
what my wetland is, and I do not want or need more protection measures.
I already have to worry about the Endangered Species Act.
I also found some other disturbing things in the Strategic Plan.
First, the thing that worries me most is Operational Objective 2.2.
``To integrate conservation and wise use of wetlands in all Contracting
Parties into national, provincial and local planning and decision-
making on land use, groundwater management, catchment/river basin and
coastal zone planning, and all other environmental planning and
management.'' I see this that for the past five generation that my
family has not been doing a good enough job protecting our wetlands and
now someone is trying to tell us how to manage our private property and
cattle operation. I thought this convention was not supposed to have
any land use regulations. This does not seem to be the case. I don't
want the United Nations helping put more land use restrictions on my
family's property.
Second, the Introduction states, ``Through this Plan, the
Convention's long-standing technical work in wetlands is strengthened,
and a new catalytic role vis-a-vis the development assistance community
is established. The Convention's technical and policy work becomes more
closely related to the broader concerns of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, and its traditional involvement with waterfowl is related
more clearly to the Convention on Migratory Species.'' This mission
creep worries me because now the true intent of the Convention has
grown, and there is more chance that it will encroach on my property
rights.
Third, General Objective 2 states, ``The Conference of the
Contracting Parties has determined that the concept of wise use applies
to broad planning affecting wetlands.'' It also says, ``the greatest
emphasis in Ramsar implementation will be placed on wetlands in the
context of land-use planning, water resource management and other
decisions affecting wetlands. Where Contracting Parties are developing
national wetland policies (or other policies encompassing conservation
and wise use of wetlands), such policies should be in conformity with
other national environmental planning measures. Legislative changes may
also be necessary.'' This sounds like land use regulation that will
affect my private property rights and restrict my land use.
Fourth, the Mission Statement says, ``The Convention's mission is
the conservation and wise use of wetlands by national action and
international cooperation as a means to achieving sustainable
development throughout the world.'' Sustainable development seems to be
a far cry from protecting waterfowl. Also, ``national action'' sounds a
lot like more Federal regulations to me. The Introduction states the
Convention is ``stressing the need to integrate the conservation of
wetland biodiversity with sustainable development . . . and the health
and well-being of people everywhere.'' This worries me for the same
reasons that the Mission Statement does.
Fifth, Operational Objective 3.2 states, ``To develop and encourage
national programs of EPA [Education and Public Awareness] on wetlands,
targeted at a wide range of people, including key decision-makers,
people living in and around wetlands, other wetlands users and the
public at large.''
Operational Objective 4.2. states, ``To identify the training needs
of institutions and individuals concerned with the conservation and
wise use of wetlands and to implement follow-up actions.''
Operational Objective 7.2 states, ``To strengthen and formalize
linkages between Ramsar and other international and/or regional
environmental conventions and agencies, so as to advance the
achievement of shared goals and objectives relating to wetland species
or issues.''
What this seems like to me is that they are seeking public input
from people that have absolutely no rights to my land. As I said
before, this mission creep worries me very much. I see this language
and I can only conclude that my rights as a private property owner are
threatened.
In the Arizona Republic story on February 1, 1997 the SWCBD
contends that ``. . . wetlands are being systematically destroyed,
drained or polluted by urban sprawl, mining, livestock grazing and
timber cutting.'' This does not apply to my wetland, but I worry that
much of the language from the Strategic Plan can be used by groups like
SWCBD to violate my property rights and deprive me of the use of my
land.
My family and I strongly feel that the past 89 years of history
speak for themselves. If we were not true stewards of the land, we
could not have run a successful cattle operation for the past 5
generations.
As I said before, my heart's desire is to live on this land and
pass it down to my sons and daughters knowing that they too can be good
stewards of the land without having to fear more government land use
regulations. I plead with the people present here today to consider
these words. The same government that promised my great-great-
grandfather and my great grandfather, the land, through the Homestead
Act, and pursuit of happiness is now the same government that is
helping destroy these dreams.
It is absolutely necessary that this bill, H.R. 883, include the
Ramsar convention and that this bill is passed and implemented. As a
sovereign nation we cannot give any more power to those whose desire is
to control our very existence.
______
Statement of David B. Rovig, P.E., Billings, Montana
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am David B. Rovig, a
mining engineer from Billings, Montana. I want to testify in support of
H.R. 883, The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. H.R. 883
addresses several key issues that are of great importance to protecting
private property rights, access to strategic resources and our Nation's
sovereignty. These issues are, and have been, the cornerstones of our
country's success. No nation has ever achieved or sustained greatness
without access to natural resources and, certainly, no great nation has
ever allowed other nations to dictate its resource policy. Likewise,
only those nations respecting private property rights have ever
sustained greatness. These very important tenets have worked well for
over two hundred years, but now seem to be tested at almost every turn
by those who now manage our government's affairs and their handlers in
the pseudo-environmental community. I know this legislation passed in
the 105th Congress and hopefully that will be the case again.
Let me place in personal terms the need for H.R. 883. In 1987, I
was one of the founders of Crown Butte Resources Ltd., a company that
acquired a few claims in the mountains, and $40,000,000 later had
discovered a world class gold deposit called the New World Mine in
south-central Montana. Unfortunately, as it turned out, it was within 3
miles of a remote corner of Yellowstone Park. That project made
business sense from the very beginning. It was also a project that we
knew from the very beginning would be very closely monitored and that
would have to meet or exceed a mountain of regulations and
requirements. After a very careful review, we knew those hurdles would
be difficult but passable. Crown Butte worked with the State of Montana
and several Federal agencies to chart a course for the completion of an
Environmental Impact Statement. That process alone would take several
years and cost several millions of dollars. Every concern of the State
and Federal governments was addressed and we were well on our way to
receiving the required permits. The challenge was enormous, expensive,
and unpredictable, but through numerous changes to mining plans,
ranging from how we handled tailings to where our facilities would be
located progress was made.
The now well-known piracy of the process began late February 1995
when fourteen environmental groups requested that Yellowstone National
Park be listed as a World Heritage Site in Danger. They saw that we
were meeting all the legal and regulatory tests so they felt the scare
tactic of placing Yellowstone on the World Heritage Sites in Danger
list might be their only chance to stop the mine. They did this with
the full support of the administration and Yellowstone Park management.
It seems the New World Mine was a project the radical environmentalists
and the Clinton Administration loved to hate. However, if one looks at
the facts that are associated with the New World Mine they tell a
vastly different story than what you have heard or read in the media or
in information provided by the Clinton Administration. The
Administration's bullying tactics and complete sellout to the
obstructionist agenda of a few elitist pseudo-environmental groups
resulted in an unparalleled government denial of the free enterprise
system. Unparalleled, at least until it was used as a stepping stone to
the even larger and more egregious intrusion known as the Escalante-
Grand Staircase Land Grab. What horrible precedents--now every
objection to development in the West includes a demand for government
buyouts.
There is a great deal of history tied to the New World Mine project
dating back to the mid-1800's. Mining in this area is nothing new.
Only, with today's standards, it was to be done with minimal impact on
the environment and with the approval and oversight of State and
Federal agencies. As I mentioned before, we were in that very
structured and deliberative process when a committee operating under
the umbrella of the United Nations came to Yellowstone National Park,
already a World Heritage Site, to see if it should be added as a Site
in Danger. Incredibly, when the visit was first publicly announced, the
Interior Department was going to pay for the travel costs of the U.N.
members. Fortunately, public outcry resulted in that decision being
withdrawn. These three or four committee members from such places as
Thailand paid a three-day tourist-type visit to the Park during which a
three-hour road tour of the New World Mine site was made. After this
short visit, which consisted largely of media events and photo ops,
this group of ``experts'' concluded that the New World project did
endanger Yellowstone Park. In arriving at this outrageous decision they
chose to ignore the many volumes of scientific evidence that had been
gathered on the project over several years and at great cost by some of
the world's true experts from industry and government. The nearly
completed New World Mine Environmental Impact Statement was probably
the most comprehensive technical document ever assembled for such a
project. The negation of this document was a slap in the face to the
many agency professionals, primarily from the Forest Service and the
State of Montana, who had justifiably developed great professional
pride in their management of such a complex effort. I ask you, how
could they make those findings: (A) after a short visit to Yellowstone
Park and the mine site, (B) without even a basic understanding of the
environmental review process that was taking place, and (C) without
consulting with our elected representatives in Congress? These three
failings are inexcusable in America.
Past Congresses and Administrations, in conjunction with Federal
agencies and State governments, developed a very detailed and extensive
review process with full public involvement. The studies and
information required are extensive and exhaustive by any measure. Many
agencies were in the process of doing all the necessary reviews and
requiring Crown Butte to provide all the necessary data for an
Environmental Impact Statement. That process should have been honored.
Instead, it was scuttled. All who played by all the rules paid a dear
price in doing so. The State of Montana which had invested the time and
talent of its best regulators was left out of the decision. Montana
paid the price of losing all the economic benefit this project and
others that might have followed could bring. Partly because of
decisions like this, Montana currently ranks fiftieth in the nation's
per capita income. The miners, the engineers, the businessmen, the
property owners, the counties and municipalities, all were left in the
economic lurch which was facilitated in part by three day visitors from
other continents.
To this day, I know the New World Mine could have been developed
and operated in a manner that fully protected Yellowstone's resources
while contributing to the Nation's economy. Please do not forget that I
am a life-long Montanan and I want Yellowstone to be there for my
children and grandchildren, as well as yours. I was trained from a very
early age that if you play by the rules you will be judged accordingly.
That was not the case with the New World Mine. Three other directors
and I resigned from the Crown Butte Board rather than agree to take a
piddling amount of Federal money and pull the plug on the project. A
great deal of hard work went into a viable project and it went out the
window with an ill-conceived political/media decision. If that is to be
the future process we must follow, our country has lost its focus and
its fairness. You always hear the naysayers say, ``put your mine some
place else because this area or this site is too special.'' I have a
simple reply to that. The Creator put both on earth, the grandeur of
Yellowstone, and the gold of the New World Mine. Gold is where you find
it, not where you wish it to be.
In closing, I would make three recommendations. First, pass H.R.
883 with strong provisions protecting our sovereignty. Our country
developed the concept of a System of National Parks. Do we now need
others to tell us how they should be managed? Second, let the system
work. How can we continue to invest vast sums of money in projects
where a very comprehensive evaluation system is in place and then, when
a select group decides it should not go forward, have the Federal
treasury pick up the bill? I do not think any business, mining or
otherwise, should take on complex projects with the idea that ``Uncle''
will buy them out if the politics get too hot. Lastly, Mr. Chairman,
common sense and reason have to be placed back in the process. Everyday
a new layer of regulation is added at some level in the process.
Everyday some obstructionist group uses that new regulation, or some
mutation of it, to effect new barriers the Congress could not possibly
have imagined and everyday we, in the business world, are forced to
look outside our borders for new projects. I hope that is not what
America is about. Your actions on H.R. 883 and other similar types of
legislation are one small step in arriving at an answer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Statement of Ann Webster Smith, Chairman Emeritus, U.S. Committee of
the International Council on Monuments and Sites (U.S./ICOMOS) and Vice
President, International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to testify on legislation which would
amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 and Section 401 of the National
Historic Preservation Act dealing with U.S. participation in the World
Heritage Convention, H.R. 883, the American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act, a bill ``to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over
public lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to
preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal
lands surrounding those public lands and acquired lands.''
On behalf of some 600 members, the U.S. Committee of the
International Council on Monuments and Sites (U.S./ICOMOS) opposes this
bill because it would deny Americans the opportunity to protect,
recognize and honor that of their cultural and natural patrimony which
is or could be recognized to be, in the language of the World Heritage
Convention, ``of outstanding universal value'' and worthy of the
prestige that such recognition by 156 other nations and the
international community implies.
U.S./ICOMOS is a professional membership organization with some 600
members who represent the fields of architecture, town planning,
history and architectural history, archaeology and archives. U.S./
ICOMOS is a non-governmental cultural heritage organization established
in 1965 and is concerned with the conservation, protection,
rehabilitation and enhancement of historic properties and groups of
buildings, historic districts and site, and in educational and
information programs designed to reflect that concern. U.S./ICOMOS is
one of a network of independent non-governmental national committees
representing similar professions in more than 90 countries, the
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
More importantly, in terms of the proposed legislation, H.R. 883,
ICOMOS is one of two non-governmental bodies (the other being the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature) which are named in
the World Heritage Convention as professional consulting bodies on
nominations to the World Heritage List, a list of natural and cultural
or man-made properties determined to be ``of outstanding universal
value,'' to each nation and to all nations.
U.S./ICOMOS would like to address those aspects of H.R. 883 which
deal with the World Heritage Convention and U.S. participation in that
Convention or treaty. Rather than reducing U.S. participation in the
Convention, we would encourage the Committee on Resources to strengthen
and encourage measures which would lead to a greater United States
participation in the World Heritage Convention. For that reason, we
would oppose any steps such as those proposed in H.R. 883 which would
diminish or limit the level of U.S. actions concerning the Convention
and the World Heritage List which the Convention has created.
The World Heritage Convention has its roots in proposals put
forward during the first Nixon Administration at the Stockholm
Conference on the Environment in 1972 where the Hon. Russell Train
headed the U.S. delegation. Subsequently the United States was the
first nation to ratify the Convention. Since that time 156 nations have
ratified the Convention and some 582 properties (117 natural, 445
cultural or man-made and 20 ``mixed'' or combining both cultural and
natural features) have been listed on the World Heritage List of
Cultural and Natural Heritage ``of outstanding universal value.''
In this country, important historic properties such as Thomas
Jefferson's Monticello and Independence Hall have been listed along
with natural properties of unique distinction such as Everglades and
Grand Canyon National Parks. In other countries, cultural properties of
such undeniable ``outstanding universal value'' as the Acropolis,
Westminster Abbey, and the Great Wall of China have been listed along
with whole towns or urban areas such as Old Jerusalem, Venice and its
Lagoon and Islamic Cairo.
The nomination of properties is a governmental process in each
country (or State Party to the Convention) which determines which
properties from among its national patrimony it considers to be ``of
outstanding universal value.'' Listing on the World Heritage List
includes no international legal protection or sanctions. Protection for
nominated or listed properties grows out of the laws and statutes of
the nominating country and the country's protective measures must be
stated as a part of the nomination. In nominating a property, the
nominating country is neither limited nor prohibited from any proposed
use or action except those limits or prohibitions that have been
established by the country's own laws. Nomination forms for properties
proposed for listing call for a statement of laws or decrees which
govern the protection of nominated monuments and sites, including the
nominated property, evidence of a master plan for the historic
preservation of the nominated property, together with a land-use plan,
an urban development plan or a regional development plan if any exist.
The nomination form asks for information as to whether these
legislative or statutory measures prevent uncontrolled exploitation of
the ground below the property, the demolition and reconstruction of
buildings located on the property or permit other significant changes
such as raising building height or other transformation of the urban
fabric. The nomination must also indicate what if any measures exist to
encourage revitalization of the property.
The nomination form seeks to identify protective measures whether
national or Federal, state or provincial, regional or local, which may
apply to the property. There are no measures for international
protection and no international sanctions set forth within the
provisions of the Convention guidelines. Any protective measures which
may exist are, in the parlance of the United States, national, state or
local. No international protection is claimed or implied except the
protection which might grow out of moral suasion or concern for a
property believed to be ``of outstanding universal value.'' And there
is no international mechanism for enforcement at any level.
To examine the specific provisions of H.R. 883 section 2(a),
nomination to and listing on the World Heritage List do not affect or
diminish private interests in real property (4), do not impinge in any
way on private property rights, and (6) do not conflict with
congressional constitutional responsibilities (7). As for section 2(b),
nomination and listing do not impose restrictions on the use of
nominated or listed lands (3), and do not diminish private interests in
real property (4) Following the nomination by a national government
(``State Party''), an intense professional evaluation is made of each
property or group of properties by experts in different fields of
expertise who also examine the case that the nominating country has
made for inclusion in the World Heritage List. In the case of natural
properties, that evaluation is made by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN); in the case of cultural properties, that
evaluation is made by ICOMOS. In all cases, the evaluations are
conducted as a part of a several-tier process, thoughtful, scholarly,
deliberate and positive.
What is the value of the Convention and its World Heritage List?
Those countries (or States Party) participating in the Convention see
it as a mechanism for encouraging national pride, for stimulating
education concerning each country's own national treasures whether they
represent history, culture or natural wonders. The countries where
properties are located see listing on the World Heritage List as the
means for economic development especially in terms of encouraging
tourism and visitation, a major source of local and foreign investment
in many countries.
In most countries of the world, historic cities, towns and historic
districts under the leadership of their local, state or regional and
national officials, seek listing because they know that such
recognition serves to stimulate local pride, economic development, to
encourage private investment and public recognition of the quality of
the area that is so recognized. The Ancient Cities of Aleppo and
Damascus are listed, the historic quarters of Budapest are listed as
are the historic centers of Florence and Rome, of Cracow and Warsaw, of
Bath in England, of Segovia and Toledo in Spain, of Berne in
Switzerland, of the historic areas of Istanbul, of Dubrovnik, of Potosi
in Bolivia, of the towns of Ouro Preto, Olinda and Salvador de Bahia in
Brazil, of Quebec City in Canada where another property, the small
historic town of Lunenberg was recently inscribed, of Quito, and of
Mexico City. These are among the many historic towns and centers that
other countries have seen fit to nominate and have listed for those
qualities which give them their ``of outstanding universal value.''
In each country and in each of these cities and towns, all dynamic
and living urban areas as well as being areas rich in history and
tradition, the people of the community, the pride of the community and
the economy of the community have all benefited in real financial terms
as a result of listing as well as in terms of pride and a sense of
community and patriotism.
But in the United States, in spite of our own rich heritage and in
spite of our own beautiful, historic, well planned and widely visited
historic areas such as Savannah, Charleston and New Orleans, such as
Georgetown, Annapolis and San Antonio, and many many more, no historic
towns and areas are listed. Why is that? Because an element of the 1980
amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, has limited the
nomination process by calling for the consent of each owner in an
historic district to such listing.
This statutory limitation on the nomination of historic properties
in the United States has been frustrating for the citizenry of those
historic communities which greatly desire the honor and distinction
that World Heritage listing implies and which would like to join other
historic communities on this honor roll of the cultural heritage.
Equally frustrating to them is the fact that they are being denied the
unmistakable economic benefits of tourism and private investment which
such international recognition would bring them.
Several years ago residents of Savannah sought to nominate that
beautiful and historic city to the World Heritage List. Savannah has
long been listed on the National Park Service's list of National
Historic Landmarks. But because of the 1980 statutory requirement for
owner consent for properties covered by the nomination, the city chose
to nominate only the publicly owned spaces, the streets, the parks and
the plan of Savannah, to the World Heritage List. Much Georgia's
Congressional delegation including Savannah's own Congressional
representative, supported and endorsed the Savannah nomination.
Procedures for nomination to the List for properties categorized as
``cultural'' creates no criterion for the listing of such properties
but instead, in relation to inhabited historic towns, distinguishes
four categories:
(1) ``Towns which are typical of a specific period or culture,
which have been almost wholly preserved which have remained
largely unaffected by subsequent developments.
(2) ``Towns that have evolved along characteristic lines and
have preserved, sometimes in the midst of exceptional natural
surroundings, spatial arrangements and structures that are
typical of the successive stages in their history
(3) ``Historic centers' that cover exactly the same area as
historic towns and are now enclosed within modern cities
(4) ``Sectors, areas or isolated units which, even in the
residual state in which they have survived, provide coherent
evidence of the character of a historic town which has
disappeared. . . .''
In reviewing the Savannah nomination of its parks, streets, open
spaces and publicly owned areas, it was determined that the proposed
listing did not fall into any of the specified categories of properties
or inhabited historic towns that might be listed under the World
Heritage criteria. Those reviewing the nomination called on the city of
Savannah to nominate the whole historic area but because of the 1980
Historic Preservation Act's limitations on U.S. nominations (i.e. the
owner consent provision), the city was unable to do so. This was a
great disappointment to the residents of Savannah and similarly a
disappointment for those other historic towns and cities in the U.S.
who were considering the nomination of their own historic areas, many
of which are still seeking the recognition and positive benefits that
World Heritage listing would bring. Indeed, their property rights are
denied by virtue of the 1980 amendments and would be further impinged
by enactment of H.R. 883.
This is viewed with deep concern by those Americans who recognize
and cherish their historic and culturally significant areas. Beyond the
situation which exists today, however, H.R. 883 would, in effect,
further limit the ability of the United States to place its treasures
on the rolls of the world's patrimony where they might enjoy the
recognition and the benefits that other countries have seen in their
own nominations of their national treasures.
World Heritage listing is designed to protect properties, to
protect and to preserve communities, and to serve as a mechanism for
encouraging investment and economic development designed to further
enhance such properties. H.R. 883, in seeking to limit the recognition
of quality which World Heritage listing encourages, is diminishing
rather than enhancing measures such as World Heritage listing which
serves to educate, to stimulate pride, to encourage public and private
investment, to benefit communities as well as those who live in them
and those who visit them.
We would encourage the House Committee on Resources to give serious
consideration to the negative impact that H.R. 883 would have on
existing measures for recognition such as the World Heritage process, a
process which grew out of a United States initiative, a Convention
which the United States was the first of 156 nations to ratify, a
measure which has done much to achieve recognition and protection of
the cultural and natural heritage which is found to be ``of outstanding
universal value.''
The World Heritage Convention for which the United States was the
initiator and standard bearer is the single most popular international
convention in the world today. And yet, rather than seeking to expand
the impact of the Convention and the very real benefits that it has
brought to other comers of the world, H.R. 883 seeks to deny American
communities an opportunity to participate in this benevolent,
constructive, educational, enriching program. The enactment of H.R. 883
would largely eliminate U.S. participation in the World Heritage
Convention, a Convention which resulted from a U.S. initiative, a
Convention which in 1972, during the Nixon Administration, the U.S. was
the first nation to ratify, a Convention which has brought pride to its
participants and appreciation of the values imparted by recognition of
the cultural and natural heritage to schoolchildren and scholars alike.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.060
FIELD HEARING ON H.R. 883, AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
----------
SATURDAY, MAY 1, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Rolla, Missouri.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:26 a.m., in the
Rolla Miles Auditorium, University of Missouri, Rolla,
Missouri, Hon. Helen Chenoweth, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Committee on Resources will come to
order. The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
883, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. And I am so
pleased, as I said before, to be so welcomed into JoAnn
Emerson's District.
I want to welcome our witnesses. Today we will hear
testimony on the U.S. Man and Biosphere Reserve Program.
I represent the 1st District in Idaho in Congress and
although my district is 1,000 miles from here, forestry,
mining, ranching, private property rights are very important
there, as they are here in this beautiful part of southern
Missouri.
Over the last 25 years, an increasing expansion of our
nation's territory has been incorporated in the United Nations
Biosphere Reserves. Now under Article IV, Section 3 of the
United States Constitution, the power to make all needful rules
and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States
is vested in the Congress, and yet United Nations Biosphere
Reserve designations, as well as World Heritage Sites, have
been created without the authorization or the input of
Congress; and therefore, the public and local governments are
left out of the loop and rarely, if ever, are they consulted.
I understand that the biosphere reserve program is
controversial here in Missouri. I also understand that it is
taking a nap right now. But I want us to remember, it will wake
up if we do not stay vigilant. So Congressman Emerson invited
the Committee on Resources to come to her district and listen
to the concerns that local residents here in Missouri have
about this program. I invite her to join me as an official
member of the panel and she will be participating in the
hearing.
So that everyone understands, my concern is that the United
States Congress--and therefore, the people of the United States
of America--who have been left of the domestic process to
designate Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, have a
chance at every turn to have the local input they need.
The Biosphere Reserve Program is not even authorized by a
single U.S. law or even an international treaty. And that is
wrong. Executive Branch appointees cannot and should not do
things that the law does not authorize. But this is an example
of where they are doing that.
Today, we will also hear testimony on H.R. 883, which gives
the Congress a role in approving international land
designations, primarily United Nations World Heritage Sites and
Biosphere Reserve Sites. H.R. 883 has now more than 160 co-
sponsors, including Representatives Emerson, Danner, Talent,
Hulshof and Blunt. Now in Arkansas, Representative Dickey,
Berry and Hutchinson are original co-sponsors of H.R. 883. We
intend to move this legislation from the Committee to the House
floor for a vote very soon.
Both biosphere reserves and world heritage site programs
are administered through the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). However, it is
interesting to note that the United States withdrew from UNESCO
in 1984 because the Reagan Administration found it riddled with
gross financial mismanagement. Fifteen years later, even the
Clinton Administration has not rejoined UNESCO. And yet, they
are becoming partners with the United States in joint
jurisdiction over enough land now in our country with the
present designations to fill up the entire state of Colorado.
As a result, it defies the imagination why our government is
still participating in these UNESCO programs.
We, as the Congress, have a responsibility to ensure that
the representatives of the people are engaged on these
important international land designations. I do not think that
the Constitution advises that the governing of our Federal
lands--that we simply opt out of policies that may appear
ineffectual. But instead, it expressly requires that we, the
Congress, make all needful rules and regulations regarding
Federal land, as if to suggest that we, your Congressmen, are
to jealously guard against the slightest possibility that
foreign entities have any power over what belongs under the
strict purview of the United States.
Until now, no one has lifted an eyebrow to examine how the
U.S. domestic implementation of these very programs has eaten
away at the power and sovereignty of the U.S. Congress to
exercise its constitutional power to make the laws that govern
what goes on on Federal land. Today, we will begin to look at
these issues.
With that, it is time to begin. I am sorry that none of the
representatives from The Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club
or the Audubon Society, who were invited to testify today,
chose not to come and do so. I would have liked to hear their
perspective on this issue.
I am pleased to welcome the 12 witnesses who will testify
today. If time permits at the end of testimony from these
witnesses, we will also hear testimony from those of you who
have signed up to give testimony in the open mike session.
The first panel is presently seated and I want to recognize
them. And I do want to say that we swear all of the panelists
under the oath. And I think that you have received rules from
the Committee with regard to the fact that we do swear
witnesses under the oath.
So I wonder if you would mind rising and raise your right
hand to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Please be seated.
I want to explain, before we start the testimony for the
hearing, about our light system. They are right up here and
they are just like stop lights. When the green light is on, you
can proceed; when the yellow light is on, you step on the gas
and go like heck; and when the red light is on, you need to
stop. So we give the witnesses five minutes each.
I am so pleased to welcome Wanda Benton from Salem,
Missouri; Connie Burks from Jasper, Arkansas; Bobby Simpson,
Dent County Commissioner, Salem, Missouri and Ron Hardecke,
Citizens for Private Property Rights, Owensville, Missouri.
We will open up with Wanda Benton's testimony. Wanda.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho
Welcome to our witnesses. Today we will hear testimony on
the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program.
I represent the lst District of Idaho in Congress. Although
my district is 1,000 miles from here, forestry, mining, and
ranching are important there as they are here in southern
Missouri.
Over the last 25 years, an increasing expanse of our
nation's territory has been incorporated into United Nations
Biosphere Reserves. Under article IV, section 3 of the United
States Constitution, the power to make all needful rules and
regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is
vested in Congress, yet United Nations Biosphere Reserve
designations have been created without the authorization or
input of Congress. The public and local governments are rarely
consulted.
I understand that the biosphere reserve program is
controversial here in Missouri. Congresswoman Emerson invited
the Committee on Resources to come to her district and listen
to the concerns that local residents here in Missouri have
about this program. I invite her to join me and participate in
this hearing.
So that everyone understands, my concern is that the United
States Congress--and therefore the people of the United
States--have been left out of the domestic process to designate
Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage sites.
The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a
single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong.
Executive branch appointees cannot and should not do things
that the law does not authorize.
Today we will also hear testimony on H.R. 883--which gives
the Congress a role in approving international land
designations, primarily United Nations World Heritage Sites and
Biosphere Reserves. H.R. 883 now has more than 160 cosponsors,
including Representatives Emerson, Danner, Talent, Hulshof and
Blunt. In Arkansas, Representatives Dickey, Berry and
Hutchinson are cosponsors of H.R. 883. We intend to move this
legislation from the Committee to the House floor for a vote
soon.
Both biosphere reserves and the world heritage site
programs are administered through the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
However, the United States withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 because
the Reagan Administration found it riddled with gross financial
mismanagement. Fifteen years later, even the Clinton
Administration has not rejoined UNESCO. As a result, it defies
the imagination why our government is still participating in
these UNESCO programs.
We, as the Congress, have a responsibility to ensure that
the representatives of the people are engaged on these
important international land designations. I do not think that
the Constitution advises that in governing our Federal lands
that we simply ``opt out'' of policies that may appear
ineffectual. But instead, it expressly requires that we, the
Congress, make all needful rules and regulations regarding
Federal land, as if to suggest that we are to jealously guard
against the slightest possibility that foreign entities have
any power over what belongs under the strict purview of the
United States.
Until now, no one has lifted an eyebrow to examine how U.S.
domestic implementation of these programs has eaten away at the
power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its
constitutional power to make the laws that govern what goes on
Federal land. Today we will begin to look at these issues.
With that it is time to begin. I am sorry that none
representatives from the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club and
Audubon Society who were invited to testify today chose not to
do so. I would have liked to hear their perspective on this
issue. I am pleased to welcome the twelve witnesses who will
testify today. If time permits, at the end of testimony from
these witnesses, we will also hear testimony from those of you
who signed up for the open mike session. Will the first panel
please be seated.
STATEMENT OF WANDA BENTON, SALEM, MISSOURI
Ms. Benton. Honorable Chairperson, distinguished Committee
members, I wish to thank you for the opportunity----
Ms. Emerson. You might want to grab the mike and put it up
next to you. Sorry.
Ms. Benton. Okay. Is this better?
Mrs. Chenoweth. That is better, hold it close.
Ms. Benton. Honorable Chairperson, distinguished Committee
members, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to address
this Committee.
My name is Wanda Benton. My husband and I have a farm in
Salem, Missouri. I am a property rights activist as a direct
result of the proposed United Nations Biosphere Reserve in
Missouri.
I discovered in June of 1995 that the Missouri Department
of Conservation, MDC, as lead agency, combined with five
Federal regulatory agencies and others, had plans to manage
Missouri lands, including private property. I was later to
discover evidence that Coordinated Resource Management, CRM,
was to become a United Nations Biosphere Reserve. Armed with
that suspicion, I called the Conservation Department and asked
for more information about CRM and I mentioned the biosphere
reserve program, indicating that I was very interested in
learning more. The young lady I spoke with inadvertently, in my
opinion, sent me The Nature Conservancy proposal to the
Missouri Department of Conservation, called ``The Lower Ozark
Bioreserve,'' containing Exhibit Number 1, a map of the
proposed bioreserve.
The introduction of TNC's proposal described inviolate core
preserves surrounded by buffer zones of human activity and
corridors and networks of buffer lands linking protected core
habitats for migration of animals who require large areas.
Exhibit Number 2. Under key partners who are expected to play
an important role in accomplishing the bioreserve strategy is
listed the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program--Ozark Man and
the Biosphere. In the feasibility study, the Missouri
Department of Conservation is listed on the signatory page.
Included in this paperwork was the Draft of the Ozark Highlands
Man and the Biosphere Cooperative, showing a map of the larger
picture, taking in portions of four states and crossing
political boundaries. Exhibit Number 3. Page one, objective
two, seeks designation through the U.S. MAB Program. Exhibit
Number 4.
Realizing that our land, resources and human activity were
to be severely regulated, I joined Citizens for Private
Property Rights and People for the USA. We proceeded to inform
the public through town meetings, press releases and talk
shows. We helped organize
several public meetings throughout the Ozarks. Due to lack of
public input in CRM and little public knowledge, we invited MDC
representatives who attended and answered questions from the
audience, and at our request furnished copies of the CRM Draft.
After the commentary period on the draft, due to public outcry,
MDC withdrew the CRM plan.
MDC would in April of 1997 publicly deny endorsing the MAB
Program and pretty much called the rest of us liars. To refute
this, I submit Exhibit Number 5, page 58 of the CRM Draft, goal
number nine.
In November, 1996, the following appeared in the Salem
News: ``Nature Conservancy Announces Study of Lower Ozark Area.
The Nature Conservancy has designated this land one of the
world's last great places.'' Exhibit Number 6.
In an article from November, 1995 Eco-logic, researcher
Henry Lamb's publication entitled ``Rewilding America'' is the
following statement referring to a piece of property TNC had
purchased in 1990. ``A Smithsonian article in February, 1992
described the acquisition as the `flagship' for a whole new
program of bioreserves, called Last Great Places.'' Exhibit
Number 7.
I have learned from researchers and environmental writings
that bioreserves, bioregions, biosphere reserves and eco-
regions are generally synonymous. Is The Nature Conservancy
continuing to develop a biosphere reserve here in Missouri?
This is a question that perhaps representatives of TNC could
answer for us.
I see coincidences that frighten me, such as this article
from the TNC 1998 Annual Report, ``Saving The Last Great
Places,'' entitled Lower Ozarks Project Area/Ozarks Eco-Region.
Exhibit Number 8. The little map in the article is of the same
configuration as the one in The Nature Conservancy Bioreserve
Proposal to our Missouri Conservation Department, which listed
the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program as a key partner. That
is Exhibit Number 1.
The end of May, 1998, Nature Conservancy publication, pages
8 and 9, Exhibits 9 and 10, names 62 eco-regions, the Ozarks
being number 38 on their map. Ironically, the shape of the
Ozark eco-region is of the same configuration as the drawing of
the Ozark Highlands, Exhibit Number 3, whose draft called for
designation through the U.S. MAB Program. Other TNC paperwork
shows the same configuration.
It would be helpful to know what these similarities
represent. Biosphere reserves are designed to destroy
economies, lower land values and to move populations out. In
our case, we have invested everything we have in a farm and a
home built around our handicapped daughter's needs. She is
severely handicapped and requires complete handicap access.
Because of this, the house was very expensive and we could not
do this again. If we are forced to sell our home for pennies on
the dollar, we will not be able to take care of her in our old
age. I ask this Committee to support H.R. 883, the American
Sovereignty Land Protection Act, to protect state sovereignty,
rural economies and private land ownership.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Wanda. I really, really
appreciate your testimony. But I am going to have to ask the
audience in an official hearing if you could withhold your
applause. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Connie Burks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Benton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.073
STATEMENT OF CONNIE BURKS, JASPER, ARKANSAS
Ms. Burks. To the honorable and esteemed gentlemen and
women of the Resources Committee, I thank you for this hearing.
My name is Connie Burks. I live near and commute twice weekly
to Harrison, Arkansas. I am present here today with important
documentation I obtained from the Buffalo River National Park
Service in Harrison in July of 1996. I am not here because I
have any training, expertise or background in this sort of
thing, but because of my unexpected involvement in a most
unusual situation and a series of coincidences.
I believe the details of that story are very significant to
the proceedings here today, but time allotments do not permit
my telling it. I would hope that the folks who have a copy of
my testimony in the white packet of paper accompanied by a
green packet of documentation mostly obtained from the National
Park Service in July of 1996--I would hope that you will peruse
that very carefully and compare all of the information and the
points that it refers to.
Since this happened two or three years ago, I do not think
a lot of people, even those who oppose this, are yet aware of
how we came so very close to being designated as the Ozark
Highlands Biosphere Reserve, an international designation, it
was to have been the 48th and the second largest one in the
country. It was within six weeks of being nominated for this
designation after an eight-year long effort, and yet no one of
the general public or even elected government officials knew
anything about this.
It just so happened that I, a mere country preacher's wife,
happened to hear of such a program in a round-about way. I did
not believe it at first until I visited the Southern
Appalachian Man and Biosphere Reserve and saw the signs there.
When I returned home, I thought, I think I will just call the
Park Service and put in my opposition early in case they might
ever consider that here. I was alarmed when I learned that they
were within six weeks of designating it.
I was invited to their office to allay my fears and they
gave me all of this documentation at my request, and it was
very alarming. From that point, I had another lady's help, who
we met in a round-about way--Mary Denham, she will be testify
later. Without her help, I probably would not have as easily
been able to reach the new Arkansas Governor at that time.
It was interesting, at the same time that I had come across
this documentation, our former Governor Tucker had had to
resign because of his connection with the Clinton scandals and
all of a sudden a Baptist preacher was sitting in the Arkansas
Governor's seat, and he--when we finally got this information
to him five days before the designation was to be nominated, he
immediately did the right thing and stopped the two agencies of
the 12 that were under his control, that were going to submit
us to this. As a result, all the other agencies suddenly lost
interest and dropped out, some even denying their previous
involvement. But we have plenty of documentation to show that
they were involved.
I know I do not have time to review all of this, but I
prepared a list of 12 questions that still have not been
answered to my satisfaction because, as the Honorable Helen
Chenoweth said awhile ago, they are only taking a nap. It
happened before and they will attempt it again, I have no
doubt, unless we as citizens and elected officials continue to
monitor the situation and to resist it.
1. Who are the ad hoc committees, international
coordinating councils and scientists vaguely referred to in the
National Park Service feasibility study as being responsible
for the outlining of biosphere boundaries and thereafter
submitting their plans to Federal and state agencies for
implementation? When and how are they spying out and
cataloguing our country's great natural resources? Who is
funding them?
2. When this same Ozarks Man and Biosphere effort was first
attempted through the Ozark National Scenic Riverways National
Park headquarters in 1993 in Missouri and apparently met with
enough opposition in Missouri to discourage it, why do you
suppose they waited three years before quietly resuming their
efforts to see it through to completion and why did they move
from a Missouri National Park office to an Arkansas National
Park office just across the state line to carry out their
plans, and without notifying the general public or government
officials of this move?
3. The National Park Service could produce only one article
of media publication for the whole eight-year long effort. That
one article appeared in a publication of very limited
circulation called The Rackensack Monthly, which only existed
for four issues and was published in a place called Pelsor,
Arkansas, which boasts only one store, a rural post office and
five or six houses. The National Park Service cited no radio or
television coverage. Why do you suppose they considered The
Rackensack Monthly to be adequate notification for the
surrounding 55,000 square miles?
10. Questions posed by former Arkansas Congressman, now
Senator, Tim Hutchinson, when he spoke in behalf of this same
resolution in 1996, bear repeating here: He said, ``Promoters
of these programs say they are voluntary and non-binding. But .
. . what is the point of an international agreement if no one
is going to abide by it? And if we are going to abide by it,
what happens to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which
protects private property owners? Do we let an international
organization dictate to American citizens how they can use
their land?''
In studying the philosophy behind the MAB concepts, the
pantheistic world view which equates God with the forces of
nature and laws of the universe and considers man of no more
consequence than the plants or animals, is the prevalent theme
throughout all the goals, concepts and plans of MAB and its
proponents. Adherence to this type of philosophy has produced
societies which live in poverty, who are consistently
destroying the ecology of their countries. On the other hand,
the Christian nations which are maligned and vilified by the
proponents of MAB instead have thriving economies, high
standards of living and good ecology which is continually
improving.
Therefore, I make no apology for my confidence in the one,
true and living God, whom I serve by faith in the name and
blood of His Son, my Saviour, Jesus Christ. It is a confidence
that He is very obviously arranging the design of the events
and circumstances that have brought us to this assembly today.
It is His moral law upon which the republic of our great nation
was founded and it is only by His mercy and grace that we may
continue to endure.
My request to you, our public servants, is that you be
diligent and faithful to your responsibilities to protect the
sovereignty of our American lands as guaranteed by our
Constitution. Surely there is a threat, but even more surely,
there is a remedy and a cause. Will you respond by thoroughly
investigating this matter and taking measures to end the
unAmerican abuses of our freedom?
My final statement comes from the ultimate authority--God's
Holy Word.
In Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, it says:
``The fear of man bringeth a snare. . . .'' But, ``Let us
hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His
commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall
bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,
whether it be good, or whether it be evil.''
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want you to know I feel like applauding
too, but if you could withhold your applause until after the
testimony, this is an official hearing and I would appreciate
it very much.
Connie, I wonder if you would like to have your whole
testimony, including your exhibits, made a part of the record?
Ms. Burks. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Chenoweth. All right, very good. And we will also
submit the questions officially on your behalf as the Committee
for answers.
The Chair now recognizes Bobby Simpson, Dent County
Commissioner from Salem, Missouri. Mr. Simpson.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burks follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.101
STATEMENT OF BOBBY SIMPSON, DENT COUNTY COMMISSIONER, SALEM,
MISSOURI
Mr. Simpson. Distinguished Committee members, I would like
to thank you for this opportunity to address this Committee and
commend the Committee for having this hearing in Rolla, where
an attempt was made to implement the Man in Biosphere Program.
So often any more, the Federal Government makes polices that
affect us, the people who make our living from the land,
without consideration for the ones who live and work here.
My name is Bobby Simpson. I am a third generation
cattleman, who has grown up in the Ozarks, making most of his
living for his family from private land, not by abusing it but
for caring and using it wisely.
I am the 1st District Commissioner of Dent County. I am
also a member of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association and the
Missouri Farm Bureau. I served as the President of the County
Farm Bureau for seven years from 1987 to 1994. As President of
the Farm Bureau, I became actively involved in property rights
issues such as wetlands and here in Missouri, the Natural
Streams Act. This Act was a state issue which would have
severely restricted all streams and their watersheds in
Missouri. Thankfully, this was soundly defeated.
After the defeat of the Natural Streams Act, I decided to
run and won the 1st District Commissioner in 1994. Little did I
know what was lying ahead for me, but a proposed project called
the Ozark Highlands Man in Biosphere Program. This was being
introduced through Coordinated Resource Management, sponsored
by the Missouri Department of Conservation. Many Federal and
state agencies had endorsed this and had signed on. Since the
Man in Biosphere Program included Dent County and since the
County Commission is elected by the people, we should have been
informed and consulted. This was not the case. In fact, I did
not know of this program until some of my constituents, who are
here today, informed me. As a local elected official, I should
have been the first to know about these issues that affect both
the public and private uses of the natural resources in my
county. Unfortunately county government seems to be the last to
know when it comes to Federal land use planning.
Dent County is made up of approximately 75 percent private
land and 25 percent public land. There are approximately 70,000
acres of National Forest in Dent County. The National Forest
provides thousands of dollars of income to our local school
districts and county road departments through the sales of
natural resources from the forests. Dent County is very
dependent on agriculture, mostly beef cows, and the timber
industry. But there are also many jobs for our citizens related
to the mining industry that lies just to the east of Dent
County. In my opinion, the Man in Biosphere Program, if
implemented, would have totally destroyed the tax base of Dent
County. Our whole economy is based mostly from natural
resources such as agriculture, timber and mining. Without the
use of these resources, the jobs and the way of life of Dent
County would have changed or ended and many of our citizens
would have had to relocate to make a living.
In fact, Madam Chairman, the Man in Biosphere Program, in
my opinion, is against everything this country was founded on--
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without freedom to
use land wisely, how can the American farmer feed this country
and a lot of the world?
The Dent County Commission held a public meeting in Salem
on the Man in Biosphere Program, and we had over 700 people
attend. Many other meetings were held throughout the Ozarks,
and shortly after that the Missouri Department of Conservation
withdrew the Coordinated Resource Management Program and the
Man in Biosphere Program kind of went the same way.
Madam Chairman, I have a letter here from the Sierra Club
and the reason why--one of the reasons they decided not to
attend, I will quote him, ``Quite frankly, I fear for my
safety----''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. [continuing] ``as there have been instances of
violence directed at the Sierra Club.''
Madam Chairman, look around you, we have the Rolla Police
here, look at this crowd. I do not think they look very
threatening to me.
We are the ones who fear for our way of life. When you are
a farmer or a logger and you are out there making your living
from the land and somebody is trying to change your way of
life, we are the ones who feel the threat. Frankly, they do not
have the guts to come here today and tell us how they think
these programs should be implemented because they have no sound
science for evidence.
Even though Man in Biosphere was withdrawn from our area,
we still are feeling the effects, such as certain environmental
groups buying huge tracts of land in southern Missouri to set
up core areas and corridors along the National Forests. These
programs seem to never die. No agency has ever brought to me, a
county official, a document to verify this thing is over. Even
when the Forest Service puts up a bid for timber nowadays,
certain groups are filing lawsuits delaying sales and in more
and more instances are stopping them. We feel only 25 percent
of the timber is being harvested that should be from our
National Forest and new mining areas are not even being
explored, not to mention developed.
In order to protect the tax base, the culture and the
customs of my county, Dent County, the County Commissioners
signed an Interim County Land Plan May 11, 1998. Land use
planning describes the amount and type of commodity,
recreational or other industrial or land uses which provide the
tax base for the county. Forest Service regulations require
that Federal land use planning efforts are both coordinated and
consistent with local land use plans and policies. In order to
take advantage of coordinated regulations, local governments
must legally adopt local land use plans. Land use plans are
completely different than local planning and zoning. Land use
plans describe the general industrial basis needed for economic
support of the county. We have to give a written notice to all
Federal and state agencies of our local land use plan, because
without it, they are under no obligation to consider the
county's economic needs. We have to also ask all Federal and
state agencies to protect and preserve the customs of our
county under the National Environmental Protection Act. Only in
this way can local government fight to protect economic base
and private property rights of its citizens. And I have
submitted that with my testimony.
The Dent County Commission on April 26, 1999 signed a
resolution in strong support of H.R. 883, the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act. We, the Dent County Commission,
completely support the sovereignty of the United States, not
the United Nations, over public lands and to preserve state
sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal lands
surrounding those public lands.
Again, I commend you for being here to listen to local
citizens and thank you for allowing me to speak.
Madam Chairman, we have a saying down here in the Ozarks,
``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.''
[Laughter and applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Commissioner. The
hearing will come to order.
The Chair will recognize Ron Hardecke from the Citizens for
Private Property Rights in Owensville.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.114
STATEMENT OF RON HARDECKE, CITIZENS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY
RIGHTS, OWENSVILLE, MISSOURI
Mr. Hardecke. Madam Chairman and distinguished Committee
members, I want to thank you for the invitation to address this
Committee.
I am Ron Hardecke from Owensville, Missouri. I am a farmer
and the Vice President of Citizens for Private Property Rights.
As a farmer, the ability to use the land in the way we see best
to improve it and to pass the land and the heritage of farming
on to the next generation are lifelong goals.
It is a privilege to offer testimony in favor of the
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.
In the early 1990s, the Missouri Department of Conservation
in collaboration with other state and Federal agencies,
developed a program for Missouri known as Coordinated Resource
Management. The stated mission of CRM is to inventory all the
state's natural resources and develop 50-year goals for the use
of those resources.
In January of 1996, the CRM draft plan was published. Goal
IX of that plan called for the creation of the Ozark Man and
the Biosphere Cooperative.
As Missouri citizens discovered the recommendations in Goal
IX, we began to question what the designation would mean to
private landowners. Upon researching the MAB concept, it became
clear that it was patterned after the UNESCO Man and Biosphere
Program. The Missouri Department of Conservation repeatedly
denied any knowledge of or connections to the UNESCO program.
After many questions were raised concerning the MAB
program, the Department of Conservation stated they would drop
Goal IX; however, it was about that time that we obtained a
copy of the feasibility study, which was prepared for the
steering committee which was nominating the Ozark Plateau
Province as a potential Biosphere Reserve. This map here in
front outlines the area which was proposed in the feasibility
study for the Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere
Cooperative.
I want to focus on the feasibility study and how it
disguised the true intent of the MAB concept in order to get
support from the people who were interviewed. I have four areas
of concern:
1. This idea came from government agencies, not from
the people or local elected officials.
2. There was and continues to be extensive influence
by the Nature Conservancy in the establishment of the
Ozark Man and the Biosphere Cooperative.
3. The original plans intended to impose this concept
on private landowners without their knowledge or
approval.
4. The feasibility study drew conclusions which were
inconsistent with the printed responses from the
interviewees.
It is clear in the feasibility study that the government
agencies and The Nature Conservancy initiated this process with
guidance from the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program.
Throughout the study, references were made to UNESCO, over 25
references in fact, and to the UNESCO Action Plan for Biosphere
Reserves, which was used as a model for the Ozark Plan. This
seems to contradict with what the Conservation Department told
us when we questioned the UNESCO influence in the project.
I want to read for you what the feasibility study has to
say about public input, and I quote:
``The purpose of these meetings is to begin informing
the public about the MAB program. There should be no
press conferences or large public meetings because they
encourage polarized views before the story can be told
in an objective non-threatening manner.''
The Nature Conservancy is listed numerous times throughout
the study as a contributor to the process. They are also listed
as private landowners who wish to have their property managed
as a part of the biosphere reserve. I hardly think they are a
true representation of private landowners in southern Missouri.
The interviewees were told that the MAB program is not
regulatory. Previously in the document, when describing the
characteristics of a biosphere reserve, it states that a
biosphere reserve must have long-term legislative, regulatory
or institutional protection. It also states that the designated
areas may include private land and entire watersheds may need
to be protected in order to preserve an ecosystem.
The proposal to link the core areas with corridors of wild
lands such as stream corridors would involve large amounts of
private land. With 93 percent of Missouri in private ownership,
I think there should have been a much broader debate with
private landowners before this designation was proposed.
In summary, the feasibility study stated that they found
almost universal acceptance of the concepts embodied in the MAB
program. However, the people that were interviewed were asked
several questions about what they perceived as needs in their
area. And the response to one of the questions, which was what
is one thing you would like to have for your community, brought
almost unanimous response--and these were printed in the
feasibility study--of various infrastructure and industry
wishes, to use the areas natural resources and provide jobs for
citizens. This seems to conflict with the goals of the MAB plan
which calls for setting aside large areas to exclude
significant human influences. I wonder if this part of the MAB
concept was explained to the interviewees in the study?
In my opinion, the entire feasibility was conducted in such
a way to only solicit positive responses to the MAB program.
Therefore, the steering committee could proceed with perceived
widespread support, even though very few citizens of Missouri
had any idea what was going on.
Eventually, by the end of 1996, there was enough public
awareness of the concept that the Missouri Department of
Conservation even scrapped the entire CRM program.
There has not been any law passed to keep these agencies
from trying to implement this plan through other covert means.
Therefore, it is imperative that H.R. 883 be passed into law to
ensure that the U.S. Congress exercises its constitutional
authority and responsibility over Federal lands, to protect
state sovereignty and to protect private landowners in their
constitutional rights. American must maintain complete
sovereignty over all its lands from direct or indirect
influence by any foreign power or international body.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardecke follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.128
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will the hearing come to order.
I want to thank the witnesses very much for your
outstanding testimony. And now we go to the section of the
hearing where the members will ask you questions. And under
Rule 4.G.2 also the members must confine their questions to the
five-minute structure. Any other questions members will have--
and we will have them--we will submit them to you in writing
and we would appreciate your returning a response within 10
working days.
So the Chair now recognizes Ms. Emerson for questions.
Ms. Emerson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Hardecke, tell me a little bit about your thoughts on a
possible relationship between the Natural Streams Act that did
get defeated in 1990 and the Man and the Biosphere Program.
Mr. Hardecke. Well, actually I think there are some very
significant correlations. As you know, the Natural Streams Act
was voted down by a large majority, 75 percent opposition in
the State of Missouri in November, 1990. It seems coincidental
that in September, 1991, the feasibility study for the Man and
the Biosphere Cooperative was completed, and as you look over
the list of the committee who commissioned this feasibility
study, the environmental groups who were involved with the
state and Federal agencies in this proposal are the same ones
who brought to us the Natural Streams Act. And then that led up
to the proposal through Coordinated Resource Management here in
Missouri for the draft plan being proposed in 1996, which
revealed as Goal IX the Man and the Biosphere Program.
Ms. Emerson. And you have submitted that for the record.
Mr. Hardecke. Yes, the list is one of my exhibits.
Ms. Emerson. And it included some of the other
environmental groups like the Sierra Club and others?
Mr. Hardecke. And the private landowners who were listed in
the committee were Pioneer Forest and The Nature Conservancy
and we know that those groups had a large influence in the
Natural Streams Act. So I guess the bottom line is, as so often
happens when the people say no to something, the agencies and
the bureaucrats go about it another way.
Ms. Emerson. Thank you. Wanda, let me ask you a question.
One of the concerns that I have heard from a lot of people has
to do with the signage that is near biosphere reserves, and
that is often erected at these sites that says World Heritage
Site designated by the United Nations. Tell me what you know
about these types of indications that we are coming upon.
Ms. Benton. I have not seen any evidence of any--I have had
people call me and tell me about them, but I personally have
not seen any evidence of any.
Ms. Emerson. Okay. So you personally have not seen any at
all.
Ms. Benton. No, I have not.
Ms. Emerson. Okay, have any of you all seen any kind of
signage of other types of biosphere reserves or world heritage
sites?
Mr. Hardecke. When we were in Yellowstone Park this summer,
it is on the sign when you enter the park there.
Ms. Emerson. Does it say World Heritage Site or Biosphere
Reserve?
Mr. Hardecke. Biosphere Reserve.
Ms. Emerson. Connie, you have as well?
Ms. Burks. Yes, just south of Gatlinburg as you enter the
Great Smoky Mt. National Park, it says very plainly--
International Biosphere Reserve; however, I understand that
they did not erect these signs when they (the Biosphere
Reserves) were first designated. It was only--Mary Denham can
probably tell us more about that, I am not sure about the date,
but it has been within the last few years that they began to
erect the signs.
Ms. Emerson. I appreciate that.
Bobby, do you have a sense of how many other organizations
and/or county commissions may have passed resolutions like you
all have either at the Dent County Commission or the Cattlemen?
Mr. Simpson. I know the Cattlemen have and I know our
county has and I was not notified until about two weeks ago
about the hearing, so I do not know about how many other
counties. But we felt strongly about this and wanted to show
you that local leaders are in support of this and I attached
that to my testimony too.
Ms. Emerson. Well, I do appreciate that, and actually,
Madam Chairman, I want to submit for the record too a statement
from the Oregon County Commission, vis-a-vis their appreciation
of the position that we have taken on the issue of private
property rights, and hopefully we can put that into the record.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
[The material referred to follows:]
Clerk of County Commission,
Oregon County,
Alton,
Missouri
The Honorable Joann Emerson,
339 Broadway,
Federal Office Bldg.,
Cape Girardeau, MO
Dear Congresswoman Emerson:
The Oregon County Commission regrets that we are not able to attend
your meeting on Saturday, May 1st. However we did want to express our
appreciation of the position you have taken on private property rights.
Please express also to Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth and Congressman
Don Young the work they have done and also coming to our state for this
meeting. As you may know we have adopted a land use plan for our County
in hopes it may be effective in the future should the need arise.
Sincerely,
Leo Warren,
Oregon Cnty, Presiding Com.,
Buddy Wright,
Associate Com.,
John Wrenfrow,
Associate Com.,
Gary Hensely,
County Clerk.
Ms. Emerson. Thank you.
You know, one of the big problems that I have with the
whole U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, not the least of
which is that none of the local folks have had any input
whatsoever, but technically it is supposed to infer wise use of
our natural resources when in fact you all are already doing
that. I mean I do not know anybody who as farmers and ranchers
take better care of the land because you know if you do not
take care of the land, the land is not going to take care of
you. Perhaps you might enlighten for the record, Bobby, how you
do take care of the land in a very environmentally safe way.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Like you said, you know, when you have
been in the cattle business as long as my family has, it seems
to be kind of a calling to you, you know, it is something I
always knew when I was three or four years old what I wanted to
do. And I have a son now who is wanting to do, I think, the
same thing. If I abuse the land, the next generation and the
generation after that are the ones who would suffer. We have
stopped erosion on our farm tremendously to what it was 20
years ago and I know it is a bad word to certain environmental
groups, but you know, fescue has done worlds of good down here
in the Ozarks. It does not wash very good.
But anyway, if I do not do everything that I can to take
care of my farm, I am the only one who suffers and my family
suffers and the next generation suffers. So it is only to our
advantage to do what we think is best. And I know my
grandfather grew up in New Mexico and there were probably
things back then that they did not do right, but they did not
know better. But as each generation comes along, we are a
little smarter, we look at things a little differently and we
do things differently. And we try to do the best we can.
Ms. Emerson. Thank you, I appreciate that.
No further questions. The yellow light is on, I cannot talk
that fast.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank the Congressman.
I would like to ask Wanda, have you read Ken Midkiff's
letter to Chairman Don Young regarding this hearing?
Ms. Benton. Yes, I did.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, what is your response to the
statement that because he fears for his safety, he could not
attend?
Ms. Benton. Well, do I look very threatening to you?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Why do you suppose he made that statement?
Ms. Benton. Well, I cannot speak for Mr. Midkiff
specifically, but I believe that one of the traits of paranoia
is you transfer your desires and capabilities onto other
people, and perhaps this is what is happening in this case, I
do not know.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I see, thank you.
I wanted to ask Commissioner Simpson, could you explain for
the record the economic impact of this program had it been
fully implemented, to your county?
Mr. Simpson. In my opinion, the way I read the plan was it
was--it was going to place tremendous restrictions on the use
of the public lands and private lands because it was all tied
together in this master plan. I have got a school district that
is in part of my district that is probably 75 percent inside
the National Forest and they are tremendously dependent on the
sale of timber and mining materials, you know, coming out of
their district. My county here gets almost $100,000 each year
out of sales of timber out of the National Forest and we use
that to maintain the roads and the public use of the county
roads inside Dent County. I know that is not a lot of money in
Washington, DC, but that is about a 10th of my budget and it is
very important to our county.
Mrs. Chenoweth. A hundred thousand dollars--let me see, you
get the PILT payments, do you not?
Mr. Simpson. Yes, that goes in the general revenue and we
get a portion of the sales of natural resources.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Yeah. Well, you have a fiduciary
responsibility to your constituents to provide an awfully lot
of services--roads and hospitals and schools and emergency
services, all kinds of things.
Mr. Simpson. And that is not including all the jobs that
are created through the National Forest, you know, independent
jobs. From the guy who goes out there and cuts the logs to the
sawmill operator to the processor. I know a friend of mine who
works at Canoke Industries there in Salem and he told me if
they stopped all the sales in the National Forest, that he
would absolutely have to lay off 50 employees, because he is
very dependent on that timber coming out of the forest that is
close to our community.
When the forest was set up years ago, I guess during the
depression years, our county was virtually bankrupt. And they
came in and bought that land for a little of nothing with the
promise that it would be there to give stability to our local
county governments and to our local citizens. That was the
promise that they gave that in the last few years has not been
fulfilled. Like I gave in my testimony, I feel like we are not
getting 25 percent of what we should be getting out of that
National Forest. It is very sustainable, it can, if managed
properly, can be here forever, as long as we need it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, Commissioner, the National Forest
Practices Act requires statutorily through the policies that
the Congress has implemented that the cuts should be at a level
equal to 90 percent of the growth rate and you are cutting in
that forest at 25 percent?
Mr. Simpson. That is my opinion, ma'am. You know, we live
down there, we drive by and we see what is going on. I have
friends who are in the logging business, they pay to go in
there and use the roads and that money is being collected out
of their paychecks for maintenance of the forest roads and yet
that money goes to Washington, DC and never comes back down
there to help us get the road systems in Dent County up to
adequate levels. And I know they are somewhat regulated by what
comes in Washington, but in our opinion, it is a far cry from
being right.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, I will tell you, we are trying to
change the general tax policy, I would love to discuss that
with you, but I guess this hearing is on something else that is
even--well as close.
So generally, Commissioner, what you are testifying to is
that you would have seen not only a reduction in revenues but
also a reduction in the tax base, so that more responsibility
to provide for the needed tax base would fall on fewer people.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, ma'am. If you do not have your local jobs
there that people traditionally have had for hundreds of years,
they are going to move somewhere else to make a living and we
are a 13,000-14,000 population county. You know, we really
struggle to make ends meet every year. We cannot take a loss of
income of any kind.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, boy, I sure hear you, I really do.
Your job is not easy and I respect the job that you are doing,
Commissioner.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Ron Hardecke, why do you believe that the
Missouri Department of Conservation withdrew the Coordinated
Resource Management plan, what happened there?
Mr. Hardecke. Well, I think as Goal IX was exposed and the
Man and the Biosphere concept came out in the public
awareness--it was tucked away in Goal IX, which was clear in
the back of the plan in just one little sentence or paragraph.
And that drew attention to the whole plan and then when we
found the feasibility study and you look through that, actually
CRM was just a cloak for the Man and the Biosphere Program. So
if they withdrew from Goal IX, the Man and the Biosphere was
not worth them continuing, but as it was stated earlier, it is
only asleep. And that is why we have to be vigilant and we ask
that you pass this legislation to give that protection.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much. I do want to respond
to your question. We did pass this legislation last year and
the year before by an overwhelming majority and there was a lot
of debate on it, but it passed by a huge majority. We need to
find the heroes in the Senate, we will run it through the
Senate and place it on the President's desk. And certainly
those of you, all of you, not only the panel but the entire
audience, will be helpful in making sure that this moves
through the entire process.
I do want to--my staff tells me I can take the Chairman's
prerogative and ask Connie this question, Connie Burks. On page
4 of your written statement, you point out that a Park Service
feasibility study claimed almost universal support among
community leaders for the Ozark Biosphere. I noticed that and I
was very interested in your elaborating on what you found when
you tried to verify this claim in the field about all that
official support.
Ms. Burks. Yes. Mr. Hardecke already addressed that a
little bit in his testimony too, I noticed. When I first
retrieved this feasibility study, I requested it from the
National Park Service office, that was the first time it had
ever surfaced. And from there, we have passed it on to some
Missouri folks and what-have-you, but it is a massive document.
When we began to read it, there are all sorts of
inconsistencies in it. I began contacting some of these judges,
farm bureau agents, community leaders, et cetera who were
listed as having supported this. Some of them I knew
personally. And first of all, they first questioned ``the
what?'' They had never heard of it before. No one in any place
in Arkansas, any elected government official whose name was on
this, had ever even heard of it before.
In my documentation I have three examples of written
statements of these gentlemen who verified both by saying so in
writing that they had never heard of it and had they known of
it, they would have opposed the program. But the feasibility
study is something that anyone who is investigating this matter
should thoroughly study because it is full of one discrepancy
after another.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Ms. Emerson.
Ms. Emerson. Chairman Chenoweth, I might add that I am
really rather shocked at this, but it only goes to show the
lengths to which people will stretch the truth perhaps. I
noticed here a letter from my late husband Bill to Jerome Smith
of Norwood, Missouri, in which he states that, quote, ``I
continue to have concerns about the implication that these so-
called biospheres could have on private property rights and I
am against control of our country's crown jewels by
international agencies.''
Yet it is shocking that in the feasibility study, it does
in fact say that, quote, ``His office would not be an initiator
but if the county commissioners support the cooperative,
Congressman Emerson will support it,'' after he just said quite
the opposite in a letter. So I think that goes--shows you the
lengths to which the proponents of the Man and the Biosphere
Reserves would go.
Mrs. Chenoweth. We have come a long ways from the
truthfulness of George Washington, have we not?
Ms. Emerson. We have.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, I want to thank this panel very, very
much for your very valuable and insightful testimony.
We do have more questions for you and we will be submitting
those questions to you in writing.
So now I will excuse this panel and will call to the
witness table John Powell from Rolla, Missouri; Richard Yancey,
Black, Missouri; Mary Denham, Take Back Arkansas and Frank
Meyers, People for the USA, Potosi, Missouri.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The meeting will come to order, please. I
wonder if the panelists would please stand and raise your right
arms to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. The Chair now is pleased to
recognize John Powell for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN POWELL, FRANK B. POWELL LUMBER COMPANY,
ROLLA, MISSOURI
Mr. Powell. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and members
of the Committee. My name is John Powell and I live right here
in Rolla, Missouri. In fact, my house is only about three or
four blocks from here, so I had a hard trip.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Powell. I am a lumberman and a tree farmer and have
owned and managed forest lands for a half century. Our holdings
are located about 50 miles south of here and comprise roughly
17,000 acres.
We have been following best management practices since we
began buying timber land in 1949. We believe in the wise use
of--and let me emphasize that word use--the wise use of our
resources and that they are direly needed to satisfy the needs
of our nation.
I am 100 percent in favor of H.R. 883. Ladies, we are
burdened with way too much restriction and regulation now
throughout our nation without additional interference from the
United Nations or the Executive Branch of our government.
A good steward of the land believes in the wise use of the
earth and its resources, but not abuse. Education is the only
good answer to correcting land abuse, and if this is not
successful then any regulation needs to be kept at the lowest
possible local level. We definitely do not need or want
regulations from the United Nations. Members of the Committee,
it is bad enough having to put up with regulations from our
Federal and state governments.
I fortunately will admit that so far I have not been
bothered with environmental restrictions but I can certainly
see it coming. Take the Federal Government.
The environmental movement, the media and some of the
politicians have virtually shut down our nation's number one
provider of wood fiber--of course, that is the U.S. Forest
Service. Their annual harvest has been reduced from over 15
billion board feet to less than three billion board feet
annually.
On the state level, many have or are considering
restrictions of harvesting timber on state-owned land. Some of
these are Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon and
Washington.
Next, it will be the private landowner restrictions. These
are already in place in California, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Alaska.
Now the main point I want to make here this morning is that
we now have our hands full of our own government regulations,
so please spare us from the burden of possible international
regulations and restrictions.
I did not give any other background information, but if you
have any questions, I will be happy to answer them, but I did
want to bring out that point. We have had it with regulations
and we do not need the whole world telling us what to do.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Powell. The Chair
now recognizes Richard Yancey.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
Statement of John Powell, Rolla, Missouri
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is John
Powell and I live in Rolla, MO. I'm a lumberman and tree farmer
and have owned and managed forest lands for a half century. Our
holdings are located about fifty miles south of here and are
comprised of roughly 17,000 acres.
We have been following best management practices since we
began buying timber land in 1949. We believe in the wise use of
our resources and that they are needed to satisfy the needs of
our nation.
I am 100 percent in favor of H.R. 883--``The American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act.'' We are being burdened with way
too much restriction and regulation now, throughout our nation,
without this additional interference from the United Nations
and the Executive Branch of our Government.
A good steward of the land believes in the wise use of the
earth and its resources but not abuse. Education is the only
good answer to correcting land abuse and if this is not
successful then any regulation needs to be kept at the lowest
possible local level. We definitely do not need or want
regulation from the United Nations--its bad enough having to
put up with regulations from the Federal and State governments.
I, fortunately, will admit that so far I have not been
bothered with environmental restrictions but I can see it
coming.
1.The environmental movement, the media and some of the
politicians have virtually shut down our nations number one
provider of wood fiber, the U.S. Forest Service. Their annual
harvest has been reduced from over 15 billion board feet to
less than 3 billion board feet.
2.Many states have or are considering restrictions of
harvesting timber on state owned lands. Some are Minnesota,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington.
3.Next will be private land owner restrictions. These are
already in place in California, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Alaska.
We have our hands full now battling our own government so please
spare us from the burden of possible international regulations and
restrictions.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. YANCEY, PRESIDENT, VIBURNUM CHAPTER,
PEOPLE FOR THE USA, BLACK, MISSOURI
Mr. Yancey. Good morning.
As a witness before this Committee, I would first like to
express my thanks to the members for the opportunity to address
you today. My name is Richard Yancey and I am speaking on
behalf of The People for the USA in support of this
legislation. We believe that passage of this legislation is a
critical step in the restoration of the Constitutional
authority of Congress to address important land management
issues on Federal lands.
With over a decade of experience as mine geologist, I have
had many opportunities to deal with land resource issues and I
am very concerned at these designations. In fact, most of the
designations in the United States have originated with
environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, The Nature
Conservancy. And the National Park Service has been often a
willing partner in implementing the designation process.
Clearly, there is a keen interest on the part of many
environmental organizations--I am a little nervous, this is the
first time I have ever done this--
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are doing good.
Mr. Yancey. Let me back up here. Clearly, there is a keen
interest on the part of many environmental organizations to see
the designation of many more Biosphere Reserves and World
Heritage Sites in the U.S. Other witnesses testifying in
previous hearings to this Committee in support of this
legislation have already commented on the links that these
designations have to the Wildlands Project, the Convention on
Biological Diversity and the Global Biodiversity Assessment.
Clearly, the Wildlands Project controversial goal of converting
50 percent or more of the U.S. land area to natural habitats
with very limited human use would be viewed as rather extreme
by most Americans. But we are participating in two major U.N.
programs, which currently have no Congressional oversight and
are very supportive of this extremism and appear to be
implementing it.
Considering my background, I would like to explain to the
Committee members why the people of Missouri, specifically
those who are directly dependent on the mining industry for
their income, need the protection that the American Land
Sovereignty Protect Act would provide. In Missouri, mining has
an annual value of over $5 billion and provides direct
employment to more than 8,000 people, employing thousands of
others indirectly. Missouri is the nation's foremost producer
of lead and a significant producer of zinc and copper. All of
these metals are of significant strategic importance to the
United States.
The lead deposits of southeast Missouri lie in a rather
unique geologic setting. In fact, southeast Missouri contains
the largest known concentration of lead in the earth's crust.
But this does not mean that these deposits are widespread or
easy to find. Discovery of even one deposit often takes years
of exploration and a very serious amount of capital investment.
A basic understanding of the geology and development
requirements of these deposits is critical if one is to analyze
the needs of Missouri's metals mining industry. Often I am
asked why we just could not locate our mines in less
environmentally sensitive areas, although nobody in the
environmental organizations seem to know where such a place
might be. The answer is simple--mines are located where the ore
deposits are located, not where we would like for them to be,
which would be on my land, if I had a choice.
[Laughter.]
In the case of southern Missouri, the most prospective area
for new discoveries cuts a swath directly across the region
recently proposed for the Ozark Man and the Biosphere. And I
have got a map that I have included with my written testimony.
If the Ozark Man and Biosphere were to become reality, it
would be not hard to imagine its impact on Missouri's lead
mines, not to mention the other natural resource based
industries. Exploration for mineral resources is not an
activity compatible with Biosphere core area management
regimens. Drilling for mineral resources might be allowed in
buffer zones, but what would be the point since new mines will
not be allowed. A good example is the halting of the new World
Mine Project near Yellowstone World Heritage Site, which is
stark evidence of how the U.N. views mining. Although it is not
likely, there may even be pressure for closure of current mine
operations since these sort of activities do not fit in the
social engineering mind set of sustainable development called
for in these programs. Regardless, without discovery of new
resources, lead mining in Missouri will come to a screeching
halt in a few years.
Now the common thread of all these efforts is the removal
of large portions of public and private lands from multiple-use
methods of land management without substantial input from the
people affected or their elected officials. And in place of
this common-sense conservation-minded process of resource
management, these programs wish to implement a sustainable
development economy that is yet to be clearly defined as to how
it will work. However, this is irrelevant to the environmental
extremists who have conceived of radical programs like the
Wildlands Project, which put nature above man in every case.
The real tragedy of such radical schemes is that they ignore
the successes of other more reasonable approaches and
needlessly destroy the economic, social and environmental
progress accomplished by the efforts of thousands of
responsible land managers and millions of American citizens, as
Bobby was speaking about earlier.
Furthermore, subjugating U.S. laws to U.N. regulations
through an international agreement that does not have the will
and support of the people of this country or the oversight of
Congress, I feel strains the limits of the Constitution. This
is especially true when sections of an international agreement
are being implemented without ratification, as is in the case
of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This presents a
threat to the sovereignty of the United States. And I will say
that again, I really feel this presents a threat to the
sovereignty of the United States. There is a definite lack of
accountability on the part of the Man and the Biosphere and
World Heritage Site programs and the international
bureaucracies that have sprung from these UNESCO projects.
Without passage of legislation like the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act, these problems will not only
continue, but will propagate across the U.S. as more citizens
of rural communities find their means of income regulated out
of existence by radical environmental management schemes. I
encourage the members of the House Resources Committee to make
the House of Representatives at large aware of the seriousness
of this situation and turn this legislation into law as soon as
possible.
Now I added a little postscript here after reading the
Sierra Club's little letter that they sent out. You know, I
just have to say the lack of witnesses by the environmental
organizations demonstrates their desire to circumvent even the
most fundamental aspects of the democratic process here. You
know, the Sierra Club's program director, Ken Midkiff's excuse
for not coming here today, that he has been threatened by
People for the USA, which I represent, and other groups, is
just pure political hype.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Yancey. The Chair recognizes
Mary Denham for testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yancey follows:]
Statement of Richard J. Yancey, President, Viburnum Chapte, People for
the USA!
Introduction
As a witness before this Committee, I would first like to
express my thanks to the members, especially Representatives
Don Young and JoAnn Emerson, for the opportunity to address you
today. My name is Richard Yancey and I am speaking on behalf of
The People for the USA! in support of The American Land
Sovereignty Act, H.R. 883. We believe that passage of this
legislation is a critical step in the restoration of the
Constitutional authority of Congress to address important land
management issues on Federal lands.
With over a decade of experience as a mine geologist, I
have had many opportunities to deal with land resource issues
and I am very concerned about the United Nations Man and the
Biosphere and World Heritage Site designations. There are
already 67 such designations, 47 Biosphere Reserves and 20
World Heritage Sites, in the United States. Designation of a
site under either program does not require input from Congress
or the people living in the region. In fact, most designations
in the United States originated with environmental
organizations like the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy,
although the National Park Service has often been a willing
partner in implementing the designation process.
Program Descriptions
Briefly, I will describe the most essential aspects of both
programs, since other witnesses have already done a very good
job laying out the details. The Biosphere Reserve model
consists of three areas: a core area, a buffer zone and a
transition area. While the World Heritage Sites are generally
not set up under the same model, recent events near the
Yellowstone World Heritage Site make it clear that similar
guidelines are being followed.
Man and the Biosphere models focus on the core area, which
consists of minimally disturbed ecosystems and only activities
that do not adversely affect natural processes and wildlife are
allowed. Often core areas are centered on a National Park or
Wildlife Refuge, but may extend beyond public lands to include
private properties. The Federal or state lands would be very
carefully managed and the private lands would be heavily
regulated to fit the biosphere guidelines. Certainly, most
multiple-use activities, including mining, ranching, timbering
and farming, would not be allowed in core areas.
Surrounding core areas are buffer zones, where activities
and natural resources are managed to help protect the core
areas. Multiple-use activities are specifically allowed in
buffer zones under the Man and the Biosphere model, but in
practice, have been not been permitted to take place in any
substantial manner. Once again, we can look to the Yellowstone
World Heritage Site, where Crown Butte Mining's development of
the New World Mine was halted, despite the fact that there was
a mountain range between the World Heritage Site boundary and
the proposed mine. Especially onerous in this affair was how
the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a group of 13 environmental
organizations, manipulated the World Heritage Committee into
declaring the site as ``World Heritage Site in danger.'' This
introduced a perception of impending disaster to the issue.
This perception was patently false but, nevertheless, the
Clinton Administration blocked the development of this project
at a very high cost to U.S. taxpayers.
The outermost layer of a Biosphere Reserve is a transition
area, which is a ``dynamic zone of cooperation in which
conservation knowledge and management skills are applied.''
While economic development in transition areas is more
acceptable than in buffer zones, it is still highly regulated
and subject to management by United Nations officials. The
three layers or ones often encompass millions of acres of
public and private land.
Clearly, there is keen interest on the part of many
environmental organizations to see the designation of many more
Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites in the U.S. Other
witnesses testifying to this Committee in support of H.R. 883
have already commented on the links the Man and the Biosphere
and World Heritage Site programs have to the Wildlands Project,
the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Global
Biodiversity Assessment.Clearly, the Wildlands Project
controversial goal of converting 50 percent or more of the U.S.
land area to natural habitats with very limited human use would
be viewed as rather extreme by most Americans. Yet we are
participating in two major U.N. programs, which currently have
no Congressional oversight, that are very supportive of this
extremism and appear to be implementing it.
Impacts to Missouri Communities
So how do the Man and the Biosphere and World Heritage Site
programs affect Missourians? There was a recent attempt to
designate a Biosphere Reserve here in southern Missouri. The
consequences of such a designation would reach deep into the
economic and social soul of many rural communities here in the
Ozarks. This region is heavily dependent on natural resource
based industries such as mining, timbering and agriculture.
These industries have deep roots, with documented evidence of
the French mining lead at Mine LaMotte as early as 1721.
Missouri has been a major producer of timber for nearly two
hundred years and has had a strong agricultural history and is
currently the second in beef production in the United States.
All these activities will be adversely affected by Man and the
Biosphere or World Heritage Site designation.
Considering my background, I would like to explain to the
Committee members why the people of Missouri, specifically
those who are directly dependent on the mining industry for
their income, need the protection that the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act would provide. Mining has an annual
value to Missouri of over five billion dollars and provides
direct employment for more than eight thousand people and
employing thousands of others indirectly. Besides being a major
producer of crushed stone, gravel and lime, Missouri is also
the nation's foremost producer of lead and a significant
producer of zinc and copper. All of these metals are of
strategic importance to the United States. It is the lead/zinc/
copper mines and exploration for new deposits that are at
highest risk.
The lead deposits of southeast Missouri lie in a rather
unique geologic setting. In the first place, most deposits of
this type tend to be zinc dominated, whereas these are lead
dominated, with significant amounts of zinc, copper, silver and
cobalt. Furthermore, the size and number of the deposits also
sets them apart from other similar deposits found elsewhere in
the world. In fact, southeast Missouri contains the largest
known concentration of lead in the earth's crust. But this does
not mean that these deposits are widespread or easy to locate.
Your typical deposit tends to be several thousand feet in
length, only a few hundred feet wide and is found only in a
specific geologic setting in the Bonneterre Formation. To
complicate matters, there is no geophysical method that has
been successful in detecting these type of deposits, so
drilling and a good understanding of the local geology are the
geologist's main exploration tools. Discovery of even one
deposit often takes years of exploration and a very serious
amount of capital investment.
Development of a mining property requires extensive study.
Before any actual development can take place ore reserve
analysis, mine planning, modeling and financial analysis must
be completed. In addition, detailed Environmental Impact
Studies must be conducted and a myriad of permits applied for,
all under the scrutiny of a variety of Federal, state and local
regulatory agencies and the public. Then comes the actual
construction of facilities and mine development. The
multifaceted aspect of such an undertaking requires large
infusions of capital funding and a lot of time. Generally, most
mines take anywhere from ten to twenty years of work before the
first ton of ore is processed.
A basic understanding of the geology and development
requirements of these deposits is critical if one is to analyze
the needs of Missouri's metals mining industry. Often, I am
asked why we just couldn't locate our mines in a less
environmentally sensitive area (although none of the
environmental organizations knows where such a place would be).
The answer is simple--mines are developed where the ore
deposits are located, not where we would like for them to be.
In the case of southern Missouri, the most prospective area for
new discoveries cuts a swath directly across the region
recently proposed for the Ozark Man and the Biosphere Reserve.
Depending on how the boundaries would be drawn for the
Biosphere Reserve, current operations would likely fall in the
buffer zone. Note the map included with this testimony
delineating Federal lands, major rivers, the proposed Biosphere
boundaries and the area of highest exploration potential for
this region of southern Missouri. It is also important to note
that not shown on the map are thousands of acres of state land
in this area, as well as significant private holdings (i.e. the
Nature Conservancy) which already exclude exploration.
If the Ozark Man and the Biosphere were to become reality,
it would not be hard to imagine its impact on Missouri's lead
mines, not to mention other natural resource based industries.
Exploration for mineral resources would not be an activity
compatible with Biosphere core area management regimens.
Drilling for mineral resources might be allowed in buffer
zones, but what would be the point, since new mines will not be
allowed. The aforementioned New World Mine project is stark
evidence of how the U.N. views mining. Although it is not
likely, there may even be pressure for closure of current mine
operations, since these sort of activities will not fit into
the social engineering mind set of ``sustainable development''
called for in the Man and the Biosphere and World Heritage Site
programs. Regardless, without the discovery of new resources,
lead mining in Missouri will come to a screeching halt in a few
years. One or two mines could last as long as fifteen years on
their current reserve base, but that would be unlikely,
considering the higher costs of doing business with ever more
stricter environmental regulations found in Biosphere Reserve
areas.
Efforts at Ozark Man and the Biosphere Designation
So how likely is it that this area could be designated a
U.N. Biosphere Reserve? The answer to that question is obvious
if one looks at recent events.
First, the area in question, encompassing the watersheds of
the Current and Eleven Point Rivers, has been chosen as a
Bioreserve by the Nature Conservancy, which helped pave the way
for the initial attempt at designation of the U.N. Ozark Man
and the Biosphere. This is an area 120 miles long by 50 miles
wide at its widest point, containing more than 2.3 million
acres of land. At present, less than 500,000 acres of this area
are publicly held properties.
Second, the effort of the Missouri Department of
Conservation to implement Coordinated Resource Management
included provisions to support the Man and the Biosphere
efforts in Missouri in its initial draft. Coordinated Resource
Management was an attempt to further integrate management of
both public and private lands by state and Federal agencies,
along with non-governmental organizations. Although there were
some commendable aspects to Coordinated Resource Management,
several provisions, including the Man and the Biosphere support
issue, caused enough public outcry to force the Department of
Conservation to scrap the program.
Third, efforts by mining companies to acquire prospecting
permits to explore for mineral deposits in the Mark Twain
National Forest in the region have been blocked by the Clinton
Administration. Two Environmental Assessments and an
Environmental Impact Study have been conducted, finding no
reason to disallow exploration. The Forest Service, after years
of delays, was poised to issue permits. However, the Bureau of
Land Management, which manages mineral resources on Federal
lands, would not allow the permits to be issued. After months
of discussions with the BLM and Bruce Babbitt of the Interior
Department, the permit applications were withdrawn by the Doe
Run Company, a major mining company with mines in the region.
It had become obvious that the Interior Department was
requiring the company to forfeit its legal rights to any new
discoveries if exploration permits were to be issued. This
raises serious questions of legality of the Interior
Department's position and tactics, since the laws and
regulations regarding issuance of prospecting permits contains
no provision for exclusions of this sort.
Fourth, Missouri's Attorney General, Jay Nixon, has
requested Bruce Babbitt and the Interior Department to withdraw
from consideration for prospecting permits more than four
hundred thousand acres of Federal lands in the watersheds of
the Current and the Eleven Point Rivers. This request has
questionable legal ramifications, but serves to illustrate a
point, considering that it asks for the withdrawal of lands
that closely match those proposed for the Ozark Man and the
Biosphere Reserve. As a side note, a similar withdrawal was
recently announced for portions of the Lewis and Clark National
Forest in Montana. The withdrawal is open for comment by the
public, but it appears that there is at least some coordination
of efforts to bring about major changes in how Federal lands
are managed which circumvent Congressional oversight and
participation.
Conclusions
The common thread of all these efforts is the removal of
large portions of public and private lands from multiple-use
methods of land management, without substantial input from the
people affected or their elected representatives. In place of
this common-sense, conservation-minded process of resource
management, the Man and the Biosphere and World Heritage Site
programs wish to implement a ``sustainable development''
economy that is yet to be clearly defined as to how it will
work. However, this is irrelevant to the environmental
extremists who have conceived of radical programs such as the
Wildlands Project, which puts nature above man in every case.
The real tragedy of such radical schemes is that they ignore
the successes of other, more reasonable approaches and
needlessly destroy the economic, social and environmental
progress accomplished by the efforts of thousands of
responsible land managers and millions of American citizens.
Furthermore, subjugating U.S. laws to U.N. regulations
through an international agreement that does not have willing
support of the people of this country or the oversight of the
Congress strains the limits of the Constitution. This is
especially true when sections of an international agreement are
being implemented without ratification, as is in the case of
the Convention on Biological Diversity. This presents a threat
to the sovereignty of the United States. There is a definite
lack of accountability on the part of the Man and the Biosphere
and World Heritage Site programs and the international
bureaucracies that have sprung from these UNESCO projects.
Without passage of legislation like the American Lands
Sovereignty Protection Act, these problems will not only
continue, but will propagate across the U.S. as more citizens
of rural communities find their means of income regulated out
of existence by radical environmental management schemes. I
encourage the members of the House Resources Committee to make
the House of Representatives at large aware of the seriousness
of this situation and turn this legislation into law as soon as
possible.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.129
STATEMENT OF MARY DENHAM, DIRECTOR AND STATE COORDINATOR, TAKE
BACK ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Ms. Denham. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
Resource Committee. Thank you for coming and the privilege and
honor of speaking here today for myself and members of Take
Back Arkansas, a property rights organization.
Let me say at the outset that we support the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act, H.R. 883, sponsored by U.S.
Representative Don Young and co-sponsored by 162 U.S.
Representatives, three of them being from Arkansas. We were
almost designated as a UNESCO Ozark Highlands Man and Biosphere
(OHMAB) in most of Missouri and much of Arkansas September 1,
1996.
Before Connie Burks and I had met or talked, we were
working on individual tracks with the MAB information we each
had at the time. When we tried to contact elected officials in
Washington and Arkansas, we were stonewalled by cadres of aides
who tuned us out and turned us off as black helicopter, blue
helmeted conspirators. This was a common ridicule by proponents
of the MAB against opponents of these designations. In other
words, when you cannot defend the message, attack the
messenger.
When Connie's MAB documentation became public, there was a
desperate flurry of activity to inform others. Quickly a
grassroots swell against the MAB by informed people across the
state and most especially those in northern Arkansas demanded
answers to questions. We wanted reassurance that official
action would be taken to stop the designation before the
September 1 deadline.
We were able to get the information to then U.S.
Representative Tim Hutchinson, who wrote Roger Soles, Director
of the State Department of the U.S. Man and Biosphere offices
and asked that the Ozark Highlands Man and Biosphere not be
designated.
I found it all the more unbelievable when I actually read
the MAB documents. There was not one elected person or
legislative body, only Federal and state bureaucracies and non-
governmental organizations. In fact, a couple of the whereas
clauses stated:
``Whereas the parties to this agreement are empowered by
various state and Federal codes and statutes to enter into this
agreement,'' and ``Whereas the Economy Act of 1932, as amended,
provides for Federal agencies to enter into agreement
establishing mutual policies, objectives, and cooperative
relationships,'' I certainly did not know they were so
established.
How can private property owners be protected from these
same aggressors? Yellowstone is just one example of foreign
aggression on our American land. The U.N. World Heritage
Committee was called in by environmental advocacy groups to
settle a domestic dispute as to the need for more privately
owned land for a buffer zone to protect the Yellowstone World
Heritage Site and Yellowstone MAB Site from a gold mine. The
environmental impact study for the mine had not been completed.
This was private property. Where then was the Congress and
where will they be for the next such aggression?
Can't one just imagine how much havoc, abuse and aggression
an Ozark Man and the Biosphere of 35,250,000 acres, 55,000
square miles, would wreak on the citizens and their private
property in the Ozarks in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas
and Illinois?
The OHMAB is alive and well in Arkansas and Missouri, with
the bureaucracies implementing and completing their individual
preplanned parts just waiting for the day when the Biodiversity
Treaty is ratified and all will be in place. These agencies
have not missed a heartbeat in the performance of their parts
in the MAB. They may or may not have missed the money they were
expecting to get out of it, but their will to push it through,
hell or high water is going strong. According to these workers,
now they are just complying with environmental laws and codes
passed by Congress and the states.
By Forest Service ecosystem assessment and planning, the
regional OHMAB has now been extended to include the Quachitas,
the Mississippi River is to be joined by Land-Between-the-Lakes
and on to the Southern Appalachian MAB.
Further insight into this equation of denials is found in a
document of particular significance through Mike Dombeck,
Forest Service Chief, quote, regarding the U.S. Man and
Biosphere Program, the summary states, quote, ``The survival of
the U.S. MAB program is threatened. Benefits to the U.S. and
the USDA Forest Service are significant. Loss of authority to
participate in the U.S. MAB program or loss of our MAB sites,
would significantly deter progress in achieving the goals of
the President and that of the Santiago Agreement.'' I have
other documentation about the Santiago Agreement and their
participation.
In an article by Bruce Yandle titled ``Land Rights: Why do
they matter?'', he writes on the Magna Carta, the great charter
``was a watershed event in the struggle of ordinary people to
protect their natural rights against encroachments by
government.
``The reason seems clear, People do not have rights because
the state allows them--the lesson seems clear,'' I am sorry.
``The nation/state exists because people have rights. In many
ways, today's property rights advocates are calling for a
modern Magna Carta. Once again, ordinary people are seeking to
restrain and contain government. But instead of having to
settle differences with picks, swords and arrows, the parties
in the struggle now turn to courts and legislative bodies.
Their struggles help us to see how strong is the motivation for
freedom.''
Therefore, I believe that this bill comes at a pivotal
point in American history. Like the Magna Carta, depending upon
its passage rests the future of the United States of America as
founded by our Fathers.
If the Congress cannot and will not act to protect private
property from regulatory aggression from within, then how can
Americans be protected from regulatory aggression by the
Committee of the World Heritage Commission and committees of
other U.N. designations?
There should never be a question about the passage of H.R.
883 because of the oath of office each member swears to and
serves under. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The whole of government
consists in the art of being honest.'' The question is laid
squarely on the votes of the Congress on H.R. 883 as to whether
America will be a state under U.N. dominion or if it will be
the United States of America, a republic and one nation under
God.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Ms. Denham. The Chair recognizes
Frank Meyers for his testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Denham follows:]
Statement of Mary Denham, Director and State Coordinator, Take Back
Arkansas, Inc., Fayetteville, Arkansas
Representative Helen Chenoweth and Representative JoAnn Emerson,
and members of the House Resource Committee Staff, welcome to the
Ozarks. I thank you for the privilege and honor of speaking here today
for myself and members of Take Back Arkansas.
Let me say at the outset that we support The American Land
Sovereignty Act, H.R. 883 sponsored by U.S. Representative Don Young
and cosponsored by 162 U.S. Representatives, three of them being from
Arkansas. We were almost designated a U.N. Ozark Highlands Man and The
Biosphere (OHMAB) in most of Missouri and much of Arkansas.
An onerous environmental, land stealing, city ordinance was passed
in June of 1994. It was the catalyst for the organization of Take Back
Arkansas, Inc, (TBA). TBA was incorporated in May of 1995 as a non-
profit, non-partisan non-tax exempt civic organization, for the express
purpose of educating ourselves and others about our unalienable rights
in property, the abuses of those rights, the legal protections of those
rights and to learn how we as citizens could be more vigilant in
protecting those rights. We started by thinking local, but before the
end of the year, we realized some of these problems were global in
scope.
This testimony is about my personal journey into property rights
questions and answers. As state coordinator for Take Back Arkansas I
felt a duty to become as informed as possible. Being a real estate
broker, I began my research with real estate law books I had on hand at
the time. My husband is an Architect and a Professor of Architecture.
We are tied to the land through our professions, no less than those
directly impacted by natural resource decisions. All of our nation's
wealth comes from our good earth.
As history is a good teacher, in my search for answers, I looked to
the past and gained from others, their wealth of wisdom. I believe the
quotes from the past century used herein deal with property and the law
and are therefore pertinent to The American Land Sovereignty Act and
the question as to who shall write the laws and who shall control the
property. We're not even losing our land to another country, we would
fight for that, we're just losing it to the world. What does that mean?
``The great and chief end of man's uniting into commonwealth and
putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their
property'' John Locke.
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850 was a French economist, statesman and
author. In his book THE LAW he writes, Life, liberty, and property do
not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact
that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to
make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective
organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has
a natural right from God to defend his person, his liberty, and his
property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the
preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the
preservation of the other two.
In an article by Bruce Yandle titled ``Land Rights: Why do They
Matter'' he writes, My studies led me to the great 17th-century English
jurist Sir Edward Coke. His explanation of the Magna Carta left little
doubt in my mind that the Great Charter, as he termed it, was a
watershed event in the struggle of ordinary people to protect their
natural rights against encroachments by government. There in the Magna
Carta one finds words that sound very much like the takings clause of
the Fifth Amendment:
``No freeman shall be deprived of his free tenement or
liberties or fee custom but by lawful judgment of his peers and
by the law of the land''
At the time of the Magna Carta, ``the law of the land'' referred to
common law, not to laws written by a legislative body or king.
Customary law, developed informally and rooted in community norms, was
seen as the only logical way to protect property rights that had
evolved over the centuries. Rights to land emerged from community and
were transmitted to the nation/state. The lesson seems clear People do
not have rights because the state allows them. The nation/state exists
because people have rights. In many ways, today's property rights
advocates are calling for a modern Magna Carta. Once again, ordinary
people are seeking to restrain and contain government. But instead of
having to settle differences with picks, swords and arrows, the parties
in the struggle now turn to courts and legislative bodies. Their
struggles help us to see how strong is the motivation for freedom.
Therefore I believe this bill comes at a pivotal point in American
history. Like the Magna Carta, depending on its passage rests the
future of the United State of America as founded by our Fathers. In the
middle of my search I ran smack-dab, face to face, into a UNESCO MAB in
my two home states of Missouri and Arkansas.
If the Congress can not, or will not, act to protect American land
from regulatory aggression from within the United States then how can
American land be protected from regulatory aggression by the Committee
of the World Heritage Commission and committees of other U.N.
designations? How then can private property owners be protected from
these same aggressors? Yellowstone is just one example of foreign
aggression on our American land. The U.N. World Heritage Committee was
called in by environmental advocacy groups to settle a domestic dispute
as to the need for more privately owned land for a buffer zone to
``protect'' the Yellowstone World Heritage site and Yellowstone U.N.
Man and the Biosphere (MAB) site from a gold mine. The environmental
impact study for the mine had not been completed.
The coal in Utah is another example of this mentality. This was
private property. Where was the Congress and where will they be on the
next such aggression? This is domestic and foreign aggression on
American soil. A U.S. MAB project is a program initiated by, run by,
and for bureaucrats and NGO's and God help anyone who gets in their
way, they will ridicule, slander and try to destroy that person.
Proponents of these designations blame their opponents for not
understanding the beneficial, benign and benevolent attributes of these
designations. One can't even understand their eco-speak. If they want
to be better understood a dictionary of their newly coined words would
help. Of course, according to the Feasibility Study, us Arkies 'ain't
supposed to know nothing. We would certainly be too ignorant to
understand their other worldview.
More importantly, there is a different value system, which is
taught in schools and churches and does need to be understood. In high
schools and colleges a biocentric textbook is being used to teach
Conservation Biology. In the textbook, CONSERVATION BIOLOGY are just
two phrases which give insight into their world view: Alternative means
of regulation have been proposed, and it is clear that we should
explore all avenues to a better system. However, most that have been
proposed to date are significantly flawed. For example, to assume that
voluntary compliance for the common good will preserve systems is at
best naive, given the fact, as already noted, that regulation became
necessary in the absence of voluntary compliance. Similarly, while so-
called market based approaches may have some applicability, the market,
by failing to deal adequately withboth equity and ecology, starts as a
flawed instrument . . . Theological schools are training seminarians
about the interface between religion and the environment. These efforts
are all part of an interfaith program instituted late in 1993 that will
underline the injunction to revere God's creation and to protect it
(Joint Appeal 1992) because changes in the underlying value systems of
human societies are critical to achieving conservation goals, religious
values and teaching can play a vital role in creating a human
relationship with the earth. However, those teachings must move beyond
self-salvation for an afterlife to incorporate planetary salvation now.
I believe that we understand these designations better than the
proponents do, we know they are wrong! Just for the sake of argument
though, if this MAB program is so beneficial, benign and benevolent why
did the OHMAB Steering Committee keep their scheming and planning under
wraps for over seven years and why did they deny it so vehemently even
after it was exposed. When one reads an AP story about 400 ``indigenous
peasant squatters'' in a Guatemalan MAB site taking 29 U.N. enforcers
hostage, who had gone in to roust out the squatters, it gives one pause
to wonder as to who is the benefitee and just where is the benign
benevolence.
Can't one just imagine how much havoc, abuse and aggression an
Ozark Man and The Biosphere of 35,250,000 acres, 55,000 square miles,
would wreck on the citizens and their private property in Missouri,
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Illinois? This OHMAB is designed to be
joined later with the Land Between-the-Lakes designation and eventually
to the Southern Appalachian MAB.
International U.N. Treaties, Agreements and Accords with
accompanying Executive Orders, Initiatives and Directives are feeding
the U.S. and State agencies with power beyond their competence and
sensibility, let alone the Constitutionality of their actions.
These agreements exceed Constitutional Authority to make Treaties.
Our state and national laws are contained within our legal boundaries.
These U.N. designations cross legal state and national boundaries,
therefore they violate jurisdictions of state and national laws. They
violate the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, but most
especially in the areas of:
Congressional ``Advice and Consent,'' (USC III-2-2))
Congressional Authority to ``make rules for the
Government and Regulations of the Land'' (USC 1-8-13)
``Power of the Congress to dispose of and make all
needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States,'' (USC iV-3-2)
Congressional Authority to exercise exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever. . . . And to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by Consent of the
Legislatures of the State in which the same shall be. . . .'';
(USC 1-8-17)
Destroys the clause [N]othing in this Constitution
shall be so construed as to Prejudice any claims of the United
States, or of any particular State; (USC IV-3-2)
Destroys the mandate of the clause, ``the United
States shall guarantee every State in this union a Republican
Form of Government'' (USC IV-4)
Violates prohibition of ``No State shall enter into
any Treaty, alliance, or Confederation; . . . No state shall,
without the Consent of Congress, enter into any Agreement or
Compact with another State or with a Foreign Power (USC 1-10)
Violates ``No State shall be formed or erected within
the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by
the Junction of two or more States; or Parts of States, without
the Consent of the Legislatures of the States, concerned as
well as the Congress'' (USC IV-3-1)
Eliminates the 5th, 9TH AND 10TH Amendments from The Bill of
Rights. When these are gone, can the balance of the
Constitution be far behind?
The First Amendment to the Constitution assures us ``the right of
free speech, of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.'' Under the world's greatest
civil document, The Constitution of the United States, we are free to
assemble here today, to speak freely to two elected U.S.
Representatives, who care about our concerns. Let me say, I am
personally most grateful to both.
The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to that Constitution,
gave the people and the States the assurance that the Powers of the
Central government would be limited and would never infringe upon ``the
rights retained by the States and the people.'' Quoting the Preamble
``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense,promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.'' We the people created
the contract, it is of the people, by the people, and for the people of
the United States. Our Constitutions, State and Federal, are the legal
roots which bind us together as a people, regardless of race, color,
creed or gender. It is our guidepost, starting line, owner's manual,
and the legal mandates for our civil society.
Justice Joseph Storey 1779-1845 was named by President James
Madison to serve on the United States Supreme Court on which he served
from 1812 to 1845. He stated. ``That government can scarcely deemed to
be free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon
the will of a legislative body without any restraint. The fundamental
maxims of a free government seem to require the rights of personal
liberty and private property should be held sacred.''
There is a civic responsibility for the people watch and restrain
the government now, just as there was when Justice Storey spoke of the
fundamentals of freedom. I firmly believe that if 60 percent of
eligible voters know more about these Executive Orders, Initiatives,
Directives and designations, without congressional action, there would
be a quick voter term limit exercised at the next election. Term limits
began this year in Arkansas, to bring forth a citizen legislature. The
candidates know it was politically correct and expedient to be well
informed on property rights.
The Constitution may be a small document but it is contract made in
good faith. We did not create a monarchy, dictatorship or an oligarchy
but a Republican Form of Government, self governing through elected
Representation to State and Federal Legislatures, to whom we granted
sole lawmaking authority. This authority has been usurped by
Administrative Executive Orders, Vice-presidential Initiatives,
Judicial Decisions and bureaucratic rules and regulations which have
added to the ``make law mixture,'' outside of Constitutional law making
authority, under the guise of ``protecting the environment.''
Now we have entered into an unprecedented era in American history
with United Nations Treaties proceeding from no Constitutional
Authority, supplanting Congressional authority to manage Federal lands,
through World Heritage Sites, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, and Ramsar
sites. These designations have more roots and branches than a banyan
tree.
Something else has gone awry. Under the clause ``promote the
general welfare'' found only in the Preamble to the Constitution, which
has no force of law, all sorts of Acts have passed as law, which I call
defacto laws. They are clearly not passed under Authority of the
Constitution but under the color of law. Over the past twenty-five
years there have been numerous environmental laws passed by Congress,
without the Congress writing the rules and regulations. What started as
an honest concern for health and safety has turned into a burgeoning
business with another agenda. The environment industry has now become a
direct ten percent of our economy. The direct and indirect added cost
to government and private citizens is relatively higher as the growth
in related rules and regulations by Federal and State bureaucracies has
grown exponentially.
My encounter with the Ozark Highlands Man and The Biosphere began
in late 1995 with an article in an National Wilderness Magazine, NWI
RESOURCE. Time and space doesn't permit me to name the hundreds of
people I talked with, who shared time, information and publications
with me. In early 1996 I had read a small warning in a paper from
People of the West, now People of the USA announcing the plans for a
MAB program in the southern half of Missouri and the northern third of
Arkansas. The Missouri Department of Conservation was seeking comment
on their Draft Plan, which included information on the OHMAB.
In July of 1996, after Governor Huckabee took office and
immediately started lobbying for the 1/8th cent ``Conservation Tax'' I
contacted Jim Wilson, an aide of the Governor, whom I had considered a
personal friend with my concerns about an OHMAB and his remark to me
was, ``Now Mary, don't get like those people who got on the roof tops
and look for the Lord to return on a certain day.'' My reply to him
was, ``Now Jim, don't talk to me about apples and oranges, I'm talking
about Biospheres, of which, you obviously know nothing.''
After another call or two Jim did ask me to send the materials I
had, to the Governor and he would see that the matter was studied. The
next week State Senator John Brown had hand delivered a packet of
information to the Governor, from me, including Dr. Michael Coffman's
video ``Biodiversity--The Key to Destroying Property Rights and the
U.S. Constitution.'' I later received a call from another aide, Chris
Pyle, about mid August asking for another copy of the video and it was
sent directly to the Governor by Susan Coffman.
As chief executive officer of the state, I thought the Governor
would want to be informed. At the same time, Game & Fish Director,
Steve N. Wilson was telling the Governor that it was all ``black
helicopters and blue helmets.'' Unbeknown to me Connie had already sent
her documents to the Governor. I didn't give up on my attempts to know
that this was considered seriously, and as I learned later, neither did
Connie.
About August the 18th, after listening to a tape ``The Rewilding of
America,'' I called the producer of the tape, Tex Marrs Ministry office
in Texas, and asked if they could give me further information and
documentation. The sole staffer there reluctantly gave me the name and
phone number of Connie Burk. When we talked she told me of her
information and concerns.
Connie came to my Fayetteville office where I had arranged for her
to be interviewed by Rusty Garrett and give him copies of her
information. Rusty is a reporter with the Northwest Arkansas Times. The
following Sunday Rusty's Biosphere article was front page with a photo
of a schematic drawing of a biosphere layout by Carol W. LaGrasse that
she had published in the Biosphere edition of her ``Positions on
Property Rights.'' People started calling wanting answers to questions.
After answering the best I could, I referred them to the Governor.
He called off the Game and Fish participation in the program three
days before the Nomination was to have been finalized. There was no
response from the Governor, to the people's questions, until after the
November elections and the Conservation Tax was passed. He then issued
a denial letter with Steve Wilson's fairy tale denial memo of biosphere
involvement attached. Nor did he correct the false impression in a
later TV interview. This can be found on TBA Home page http://
www.users.NWArk.com/-tbark/
Before Connie and I had met or talked we were working on individual
tracts with the MAB information we each had at the time. When we tried
to contact elected officials in Washington and in Arkansas we were
stonewalled by cadres of aides who tuned us out and turned us off as
``black helicopter-blue helmet conspirators.'' I heard this in the
halls of Congress when these designations were debated. This was a
common turn off by the environmentalist and proponents of the MAB.
We were able to get the information to then, U.S. Representative,
now U.S. Senator Tim Hutchinson, by way of a mutual friend, State
Senator Fay Boozman, who delivered it to Mr. Hutchinson at church on
Sunday before the nomination was to be finalized on September 1, 1996.
Mr. Hutchinson wrote Roger Soles, then Director of the State Department
the U.S. Man and The Biosphere offices and asked that the Ozark
Highlands Man and Biosphere not be designated. After that,
Representative Hutchinson testified before a Resource Committee Hearing
for the American Land Sovereignty Act in September of 1996.
All of this was a nightmare, but I found it more unbelievable when
I actually read the Cooperative Agreement (Memorandum of
Understanding), Nomination Form, and the Feasibility Study for the
Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere (OHMAB).
There was not one elected person or legislative body involved, only
Federal and State bureaucrats and Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGO's). In fact, a couple of the ``Whereas'' clauses stated:
WHEREAS the parties to this agreement are empowered by various
state and Federal codes and statutes to enter into this
agreement and
WHEREAS, the Economy Act of 1932, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 1535
and 1346(b) (Interagency Agreements), provides for Federal
agencies to enter into establishing mutual policies,
objectives, and cooperative relationships and
I certainly didn't know they were so enabled. That wasn't the only
shocker. I learned from the Feasibility Study in Chapter 9--Ozark
Culture that, 4This culture appears to interact with the environment
harmoniously, and individuals in this group have relatively little
impact on the environment. Exceptions are that they dispose of solid
waste in the hollows and have primitive systems for sewage disposal.
I found in Chapter 10--Ozark Economy these two elitist pearls of
wisdom: Distortions enter the culture with the welfare system and some
illegal activities. Many of these people (with populations concentrated
in Missouri in Carter County, Oregon County, and to some extent Shannon
County) have been unable to continue in their self-sufficient
lifestyle. They have turned to public welfare assistance to become part
of the cash economy. Many third and fourth-generation welfare families
live in these counties. Poaching is common. Outsiders coming into the
area have brought the influence of drugs. Ozark residents have always
had alcohol but not other drugs. In addition to noting the use of
drugs, several interviewees believe that growing marijuana has become a
very large non-reported cash industry. And,Because of the original
culture in some counties, people historically are not accustomed to
working a full day or a full year. Employers complain that no one shows
up for work on the first day of deer season or when the fish are
biting. Industry cannot operate well without a dependable work force:
These aspersions cast upon the culture and economy are hardly
indicative of the hard working people who made the home grown national
and international companies like Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods, Dillard
Department Stores, J.B. Hunt Trucking Company, the former Jones Truck
Lines and numerous other home grown stock market companies competitive
in this ``global economy.''
With all of the bureaucratic agencies involved in this MAB program
they should be able to keep Al Gore's earth in the balance. No wonder
Roger Soles asked why we were so against the U.N. MAB in the Ozarks. He
wanted to know why they had failed, so he commissioned a research paper
found at: http://ssu.agri.missouri.edu/Publications/Ozarks/toc.html
After the intersection with the OHMAB we quadrupled our efforts.
All over the state TBA members were helping their neighbors and
adjoining counties to become informed. Together we raised the awareness
of these designations and their impact on property rights.
Through reading an article by Ruth Kaiser in the National Federal
Lands Conference newsletter ``Update'' titled, ``Using County
Government to Protect Your Customs, Culture and Economy'' I learned of
the National Environment Protect Act (NEPA) ``little NEPA'' codes. By
initiating a County Land Use Plan under certain codes Congress had
provided in NEPA, local governments would have a seat at the table with
these agencies, for any bureaucratic decision making within their
counties.
I made this information available to members statewide. A
conference was held in Harrison, Arkansas August 2nd 1997 with members
of the National Federal Lands Conference, Ruth Kaiser, Director, Howard
Hutchinson, Tom McDonnel, Michael Kelly and Attorney Karen Budd Falen
giving a seminar on these County Land use plans. As these ordinances
were being passed by the counties in Arkansas, the Forest Service and
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Director were trying to squash the
ordinances.
The OHMAB is alive and well in Missouri and Arkansas with the
bureaucracies implementing and completing their individual preplanned
parts just waiting for the day when the Biodiversity Treaty is ratified
and all will be in place. These agencies haven't missed a heartbeat in
the performance of their parts in this MAB. They may, or may not, have
missed the money they were expecting to get out of it but their will to
push it through, hell or high water is going strong. They now hide
under the myriad of environmental Acts passed by Congress.
Following the delayed, but completed and ready to submit Nomination
Form, the activities of these agencies, sure walks, talks and smells;
like the beginning implementation of the OHMAB with the same bad
actors.
Unfortunately the public exposure, was bad timing and came too
close for comfort for the U.S. Forest Service for their scheduled part
in the OHMAB, an ecosystem assessment. The Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission felt the same sting with their Stream Team Program, but
proceeded anyway. It's no coincidence that the same agencies are
duplicated and aligned in the ongoing MAB programs. Earlier documents
obtained delineated that the Forest Service would among other things
perform an Ecosystem Assessment and Plan and AR G&F would initiate
Stream Streams. There are other documented activities to prove the
point but the following have been debated publicly.
Almost simultaneously with the public uproar over the OHMAB the
U.S. Forest Service, in the Quachita National Forest and the Ozark-St
Francis National Forest in Arkansas and Missouri, began an Ecosystem
Assessment headed by Bill Pell, a former Nature Conservancy employee.
Even though both Forest Supervisors were signatories to the Nomination
Form, they tried to no avail, to squelch the idea that this was tied in
any way to the OHMAB. Their resource books were the completed 5 book
set of Southern Appalachian MAB Assessment of which I have a set. They
were just performing their MAB part.
Lo and behold, in 1997 another signatory, to the Nomination Form,
the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Director Steve Wilson was
introducing Stream Teams into Arkansas. After another hue and cry from
those who had stayed involved to watch the actions of these
bureaucratic U.N. facilitators, the Governor once again withdrew his
public support of this program. They were just perforrning their MAB
part, too.
A document of particular significance in my file on the USDA Forest
service is a copy of the Informational Memorandum for James A. Lyons,
Undersecretary, NRE from Barbara Webber, Associate Deputy Chief for
Research (FS) through Mike Dombeck, FS Chief, regarding the U.S. Man
and the Biosphere Program. The Summary states ``the survival of the
U.S. MAB program is threatened. Benefits to the U.S. and the USDA
Forest Service are significant. Loss of authority to participate in the
U.S. MAB program or loss of our MAB sites, would significantly deter
progress in achieving the goals of the President and that of the
Santiago Agreement.''
Another document shows that the Forest Service has a high disregard
for private property: Property rights of private land and the rights to
use public lands will continue to evolve over time. Means are provided
to determine those rights through due process. Recent important
developments are the evolution of private property rights under the
terms of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93205) and the
determination of local control of the use of Federal lands in the West
Sustainable Forest, Santiago Declaration http://www.fs.fed.us/land/
sustain dev/sd/criter7.htm#LIEF48. We, as property owners were never
told our property rights were evolving but read it on the web.
Jim Burling Pacific Legal Foundation wrote a commentary
``Bureaucrats; You Can't Trust Them, You Can't Control Them'' and I
would add, you can't vote for them, nor can you fire them, and neither
can anyone else. They have better tenure, as soon as they go on the
public payroll, than a university professor. Our bureaucracy is a super
duper giant. The bureaucrats want to secure their jobs, grow their
power through rules and regulations. The environmentalist feed at the
public trough on Federal grants and begging. Many elected officials
can't afford to stand against the environmentalist money and
propaganda, aided and abetted by the media and the polls. The only
people who don't benefit from these incestuous circles are the
taxpaying public. Americans have, to quote the title of Holly Swanson's
dynamic book, BEEN SET UP AND SOLD OUT. The private citizen and his or
her property, personal and private, is in the crosshairs of their
crossfire.
Many bureaucrats have become like U.N. facilitators and they sure
want ``consensus'' for their programs. I don't believe than these
people are inherently evil for the most part, I just don't think they
begin to understand, or want to know, the scope of the deception of
these programs. I also believe their bosses think of this as manna from
heaven, a great cash cow to grow their bureaucracies. They have
separate roles to play, they are so propagandized about their roles
that they refuse to see the picture as a whole.
If, as the researcher for the State Department MAB program has
called the OHMAB a failed nomination effort, it was because it was a
grassroots team efforts in Missouri and Arkansas that made it fail.
We, the American people do not want another entity controlling our
land. We know that whoever controls the land, controls the people, be
it by onerous burdensome government regulation or confiscation. Where
private property has remained in the control of the individual owners,
representative government has been possible and the nation has
prospered.
There should never be a question about the passage of H.R. 883. I
don't believe that the oath of office each member swears to, and serves
under, gives them any choice but to pass this Act for American
sovereignty. Every Congressman was elected as a U.S. Representative or
Senator not as a U.N. representative. It is the responsibility of the
members of this Committee and the House and Senate to decide whether
they are voting on this as Americans or as Globalists, no one can serve
two masters. The question is laid squarely on the votes of this
Committee and the votes of the Congress on H.R. 883, as to whether
America will be a state under U.N. dominion or if it will the United
States of America, a Republic, and ``one nation under God.''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.186
STATEMENT OF FRANK MEYERS, FORESTER AND SECRETARY, POTOSI
CHAPTER, PEOPLE FOR THE USA
Mr. Meyers. I am Frank W. Meyers of Potosi, Missouri. I
speak as one who has been a practicing environmentalist and
professional forester for over 55 years, which with the time
spent in the Navy throughout World War II, gives me a
perspective on the environmental scene covering 60 years.
I come to speak in support of H.R. 883, the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act.
I speak both for myself and for the Potosi Chapter of
People for the USA, for which organization I serve as
Secretary, whose membership includes many who have been long
active in management, production and use of natural resource
commodities, both on public and private land.
Today it is distressing to see productive natural resource
management which provides for human needs, being threatened on
every side.
The threat arises from a plethora of pseudo-
environmentalist groups whose general theme is to reorganize
society around the central principle of protecting the
environment, and who both use and lend credence to a variety of
United Nations plans, conventions and treaties oriented toward
control of America and its people.
In 1971, the United Nations through UNESCO initiated a plan
for setting up a world network of Biosphere Reserves to protect
the environment and safeguard the planet. The State Department
incorporated this in their planning in 1973. The Biosphere
Reserve Program has the objective of returning vast areas of
the planet to a nature-managed condition. In the U.S. this
amounts to 48 percent of the land area. The long range
objective is to regulate population distribution and land use
on a massive scale.
The Framework on Biosphere Reserves specifies the
designation of core areas in each Reserve, which will be
completely free of human use. A surrounding buffer zone will
allow only limited access and the third or transition zone will
provide for control of sustainable use.
Sustainable use in U.N. and pseudo-environmentalist jargon
means reducing consumption of goods, elimination of modern
conveniences and controlling the population.
Without Congressional approval, some 47 Biosphere Reserves,
totaling some 44 million acres, have already been designated in
America and more are in the planning stage. One such planned
Reserve was the Ozark Highland Man and the Biosphere which
covered 48,000 square miles in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and
Kansas. Although temporarily shelved, this gigantic plot to
return 48,000 square miles to pre-settlement conditions, gave
way in 1996 to a smaller Reserve proposal. It was the Lower
Ozarks Biosphere Reserve, covering 3,200 square miles in 11
counties in Missouri and one in Arkansas. Although public
outcry stopped implementation of this Reserve, the Missouri
Department of Conservation which had been a signatory to it,
saw fit in 1996 to launch its own plan for the Lower Ozark
region of the state in what it called a Coordinated Resource
Management Plan covering 11 counties.
The threat of this CRM plan is that biodiversity and
ecosystem management override the long held conservation
objectives of improving the condition and productivity of the
state's natural resources of timber, wildlife, minerals, water,
air and aesthetics.
The underlying tenor of this CRM plan, which provides an
excuse for its existence, is that the flora and fauna of
Missouri are in a depleted state. This is not the case. Active
resource management over the past 60 years has restored
Missouri's resources to a reasonably good and productive
condition.
The greatest threat to the well-being and productivity of
Missouri's natural resources is lock-up management. And lock-up
management protrudes through every phase of the CRM plan. The
CRM plan espouses establishment of the Ozarks Man and the
Biosphere with its restrictive, non-use goals and also The
Nature Conservancy's Lower Ozarks Biosphere with similar
objectives.
It should be noted that in neither the state's CRM plan or
the Forest Service's ecosystem management strategy are the
basic physiological needs of human beings integrated into or
given substantive priority in the planning process. Neither is
minerals recovery accorded any priority or recognition in the
CRM plan.
Nature Conservancy's plan for the Lower Ozarks Biosphere,
which MDC supports, states that ``alteration of pre-settlement
natural processes is stressful to the ecosystem. And hence,
management must focus on restoring pre-settlement processes.''
It is evident that sustainable refers to curtailing use by
society and managing with the objective of returning resources
to the lower productivity of pre-settlement days.
Another threat to private property and resource management
posed by Biosphere Reserves, the CRP plan and ecosystem
management is the designation of American lands as World
Heritage Sites by the U.N. World Heritage Committee. Some 18
World Heritage Sites totaling over 20 million acres have
already been designated in America, without Congressional
approval.
Proof that the U.N. designations pose a threat to
sovereignty, private property and resource management, is
indicated by the U.N.'s action in 1995 in stopping a planned
gold mine operation by Crown Butte Mine well outside
Yellowstone National Park near Cooke City, Montana.
In stopping the mine, the U.N. delegation made this
astounding comment: ``The U.S. as signatory to the World
Heritage Convention has a duty to protect the ecosystem outside
the Park.'' Yellowstone is both a Biosphere Reserve and a World
Heritage Site.
Much of America is clearly at risk.
To protect American sovereignty, private property and
resource management for the benefit of humanity, it is
imperative that H.R. 883 be enacted into law.
Thank you for giving one who has practiced productive
natural resource management for over half a century a chance to
be heard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:]
Statement of Frank W. Meyers, Forester and Secretary, Potosi Chapter,
People for the USA
I am Frank W. Meyers of Potosi, Missouri. I speak as one
who has been a practicing environmentalist and professional
forester for over 55 years which with time spent in the Navy
throughout WW-II, gives me a perspective on the environmental
scene covering sixty years.
I some to speak in support of H.R. 883, the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act.
I speak both for myself and for the Potosi Chapter of
``People for the USA,'' for which organization I serve as
Secretary, and whose membership includes many long active in
management, production and use of natural resource commodities
both on public and private land.
Today we are distressed to see productive natural resource
management which provides for human needs, being threatened on
every side.
The, threat arises from a plethora of pseudo-
environmentalist groups whose general theme is to reorganize
society around the central principle of protecting the
environment, and who both use and lend credence to a variety of
United Nations Plans, conventions, and treaties oriented toward
control of America and its people.
In 1971 the United States Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) initiated a plan for setting up
a world network of Biosphere Reserves to ``protect the
environment'' and safeguard the planet. The U.S. State
Department incorporated this into their planning in 1973. The
Biosphere Reserve program has the objective of returning vast
areas of the planet to a nature-managed condition. In the
United States this amounts to some 48 percent of the land area.
The long range objective is to regulate population distribution
and land use on a massive scale.
Article 4, Section 5 of the Framework on Biosphere Reserves
specifies the designation of vast ``core areas'' in each
Reserve, which is to be completely free of human use. An
adjacent surrounding ``buffer zone'' will allow only limited
access but no management, and a third outlying ``transition''
zone will allow for planned, controlled ``sustainable use.''
``Sustainable'' in U.N. and pseudo-environmentalist jargon
means reducing consumption of goods, eliminating modern
conveniences and controlling the population, so as to return
the resources to a ``pre-settlement'' condition.
Without Congressional approval, some 47 Biosphere Reserves,
totaling 44 million acres, have already been officially
designated in America. One such planned Biosphere Reserve was
the Ozark Man and the Biosphere which which was to cover 48
thousand square miles in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and
Kansas, Although temporarily shelved, this gigantic plot to
return 48 thousand square miles of America to pre-settlement
conditions, gave rise in 1996 to a smaller Reserve proposal. It
was the ``Lower Ozarks Biosphere Reserve,'' covering 3,200
square miles including eleven counties in Missouri and one in
Arkansas, Although public outcry stopped implementation of this
Reserve, the Missouri Department of Conservation which had been
a signatory to it, saw fit to launch in 1996 what it reffered
to as a Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRM) for the
Lower Ozark Region of the State, covering eleven counties.
The thrust of this CRM plan is that ``biodiversity'' and
``ecosystem management'' objectives override the long-held
conservation objectives of improving the condition and
productivity of all the States's natural resources of timber,
wildlife, minerals, water, air and aesthetics.
The underlying tenor of the CRM plan--which provides an
excuse for its being--is that the flora and fauna of Missouri
are in a depleted state. This is hardly the case. Active
resource management over the last sixty years has restored
Missouri's resources to a reasonably good and productive
condition.
The greatest threat to the well-being and productivity of
Missouri's natural resources is ``lock-up'' management. And
``lock-up'' management protrudes through every phase of the CRM
plan. The plan espouses establishment of the Ozarks Man and the
Biosphere and its restrictive goals, and also Nature
Conservancy's Lower Ozarks Biosphere with similar objectives.
It is interesting--in fact frightening--to note that in
neither the State's CRM plan or the Forest Service's ecosystem
management strategy are the basis physiological needs of humans
integrated into or given substantitive priority in the planning
process. Neither is minerals management including prospecting,
recovery, and reclamation accorded any priority or recognition
in the CRM plan.
Nature Conservancy's plan for the Lower Ozarks Biosphere--
which MDC supports--states that ``alteration of pre-settlement
natural processes is stress(ful) to the ecosystem. Management
must focus on restoring (presettlement) processes.'' It becomes
evident that ``sustainable'' refers to curtailing use by
society and managing with the objective of returning resources
to the lower productivity of pre-settlement days.
It appears that both the government's and the United
Nations' pantheistic objective is to control society so as to
stabilize nature.
In addition to the threat to private property and resource
management posed by BioReserves, the CRM plan and ecosystem
management, a further threat arises from United Nations
designation of American lands as ``World Heritage Sites.''
Presently some 18 World Heritage Sites totaling over twenty
million acres have been designated in America without
Congressional approval.
Proof of the assertion that U.N. designations pose a threat
to national sovereignty, private property, and resource
management, is indicated by action of the U.N. delegation
examining Yellowstone National Park in 1995. This delegation,
with government acquiescense, stopped a planned gold mine
operation by the Crowne Butte Mine, well outside the Park near
Cooke City, Montana.
The U.N. deleration not ony stopped the mine but made this
``Astounding observation''; ``The U.S. as signatory to the
World Heritage Convention has a duty to protect the ecosystem
OUTSIDE the Park.'' Yellowstone is both a Biosphere Reserve and
a World Heritage Site.
Much of America is clearly at risk.
To protect American sovereignty, private property, and
natural resource management for the benefit of humanity, it is
imperative that H.R. 883, the American Land Sovereignty
Protection Act, become the law of the land.
Thank you for giving one who has practiced productive
natural resource management in America for over half a century,
a chance to be heard.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Meyers.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And now is the time when we will be asking
the witnesses questions and so the Chair recognizes Ms.
Emerson.
Ms. Emerson. Thank you, Chairman Chenoweth.
My question goes to all of you and it is really a rather
basic question. And that is, have any of you ever been given a
clear, concise definition or explanation of exactly what a
biosphere reserve is from any of the Federal or state officials
pushing these MAB concepts?
Ms. Denham. No.
Ms. Emerson. Mary, you say no? Richard?
Mr. Yancey. Not really. You know, the terminology is
extremely vague and it speaks in generalities of scientific
studies and some management type things and in effect, you
know, if you notice, we cannot even seem to get a handle on
what the size of these biospheres are. You know, I have heard
three different sizes. My map shows the portion that was part
of the bioreserve that The Nature Conservancy outlined, and I
assume that is a core area. But you know, you do not get
anything concrete, nothing definite.
Ms. Emerson. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. It was a topic of discussion several times in
the Conservation Commission. We never did get into it in depth
at all, this was strictly a staff assignment. We never did vote
on proceeding with any definite plan whatsoever. As far as the
in-depth description of it, I have no knowledge.
Ms. Emerson. Would it be accurate to call a biosphere a pig
in a poke?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Emerson. Would that be pretty accurate?
Mr. Yancey. I would agree with that, yes.
Ms. Emerson. Mr. Yancey, I want to ask you a question. Why
do you not talk a little bit about--you refer in your testimony
and Mr. Meyers did in his about the correlation between the
gold mine near Yellowstone and what could possibly occur to our
mining operations here in this district and in the Mark Twain
as a result of the MAB designation.
Mr. Yancey. Well, I think there is a real direct analogy
here. You know, when you talk to these people, the non-
government organizations that are behind a lot of this and some
of the government organizations, it is a benign program that
has no effect, when in fact, in the situation with the New
World Mine outside of Yellowstone National Park, it was not
benign at all. They stopped that program. That particular
project in fact was pretty advanced. It had been drilled out
and it was on private property, and it ended up costing the
taxpayers of this country--at least so far the last I heard was
$65 million to buy them out because it was already established
there was a deposit there.
In addition to that, just as a side note, you know, it was
an old mining site there that had been--you know, years ago,
they did not know what they were doing, there was no
environmental remediation. In the process of developing the
mine, that would have been remediated. So now the taxpayers
also have an additional bill to clean that up, which the
company was going to clean up as part of their mining.
Now as far as how that compares to here, I would say the
process is already in effect because, you know, the area that
is in question, the mining companies have been stumped in
trying to get prospecting permits on government lands in that
area and certainly some of the private lands, for example, that
The Nature Conservancy controls, you know, there is no access
to those lands. And frankly, you know, I see a very clear
analogy here that the same thing would happen, and is in fact
already happening here in Missouri. And I would also, as a side
note too, say that it is just not restricted to the United
States. There is a biosphere in Australia where the same
situation is occurring. So, you know, if anybody needed any
hard facts of what the intentions are here, these are definite
things that have happened, not theory.
Ms. Emerson. Well, let me get something clear here with
regard to your statement about $64 million. Are you saying that
the taxpayers paid a Canadian company $64 million not to mine
gold?
Mr. Yancey. That is exactly right. You know, they had the
deposit defined and they are not allowed to mine it. And
because the discovery, that will be considered a taking and in
fact, what is happening here, you know, just to follow up on
that, in Missouri, we're being prevented from exploring, so
that there is no chance that we would find a deposit and then
if there is a taking, the government would not be obligated to
pay the mining industry for that taking. So we are being
prevented, kind of a pre-emptive strike here, from being able
to explore.
Ms. Emerson. Mr. Meyers.
Mr. Meyers. My recollection is on the $65 million, in order
to placate the populous, the Federal Government purchased land
at a price of $65 million elsewhere in Montana and gave the
mining rights on that to Crown Butte. Now I may be mistaken.
Ms. Emerson. I see. Ms. Denham.
Ms. Denham. I understand that the mining company was
compensated to a certain amount, but certainly not to the value
of the property, of the gold.
It was also my understanding that a woman in her eighties
was the actual owner of the land and has received no
compensation whatsoever.
Ms. Emerson. Well, apparently the deal did fall through
though eventually anyway, to the best of my knowledge.
Ms. Denham. It has not been taken?
Ms. Emerson. Correct, I believe it has fallen through. But
let me also make a statement here in response, the fact of the
matter is that it is just--there is a continual effort to make
it difficult for private property owners to receive
compensation for their property and there is a continual effort
on the part of government to take over land. It kind of reminds
me of when they tried to close down the Mark Twain because of a
gnat and we were going to have to close down all of our mining
operations because of a gnat. And it also kind of reminds me
of--well, many, many government programs, most of which are
tremendously burdensome and certainly not in the right spirit
as far as our rights are concerned.
I have exceeded my time, Chairman.
Mr. Meyers. Could I say one thing? We have digressed just a
little here on the mining. I think it is imperative for not
only this Committee but the people in general to recognize,
which the environmental illiterates have not done, that mining
has been a boon to forest management in America, because it has
substituted other materials for wood including fossil fuels,
steel, stone, concrete. And so that there is more timber in
America than there ever was, a lot of it can be thanks to the
mining industry since 1920.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Meyers. Thank you,
Congressman Emerson.
I do want to thank the panel very much for bringing the
issue out about the New World Mine. Indeed, the land deal did
fall through, that was correctly stated. But the taxpayers had
to pony up $65 million to the Canadian leasehold interests
without paying--as Ms. Denham had mentioned, without paying the
actual holder of the patent of the mine anything.
I tried very, very hard to get that $65 million taken out
of Al Gore's administrative budget at the White House.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mary Denham, what does private property
rights really mean to you?
Ms. Denham. Well, Madam Chairman, I have been a real estate
broker and agent for 47 years. It means to me that all the
wealth of our nation or anywhere comes from the land, it means
that we are all dependent on the natural resources of the land,
it means that we have the Constitutional rights that we retain
and that we are stated as retained, guaranteed would be
reserved, that we have rights in property that if taken has to
be compensated by any agency, Federal or state. It means to me
that there is a vote on rights, the right to do or not to do,
to mine, to forest, to do forestry, to build homes, the
partition, to do everything that Americans have taken for
granted as their right in property, which is not just
absolutely decimated by regulatory control by very abusive
state and Federal agencies, and by acts of Congress that I
believe were well-intentioned but have been so mishandled by
the administration by Executive Orders, by initiatives and by
other things and then it dribbled really on down to the Federal
agencies and they pass it on down to the state agencies. And it
is an upside down situation.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Mr. Powell, being from Idaho, I have much to learn about
Missouri, except I feel very much at home here, it is a
wonderful part of our nation, it is very beautiful. But who was
Governor of Missouri in 1995 when the Missouri Department of
Conservation endorsed the Ozark Biosphere proposal?
Mr. Powell. That endorsement was to proceed with our
planning stage, there was never any formal vote in the
Commission itself to adopt the complete program, and of course
it was junked before it got to first base, that's what
happened. This was something that was conceived by a lot of the
different agencies in the state of Missouri and we were
cooperating with them in the planning stage, but never any
formal adoption of it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And who was the Governor then?
Mr. Powell. John Ashcroft--1995? Did you say 1995?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Nineteen ninety five.
Mr. Powell. That is right, Carnahan. I should be a little
bit more up on that one for sure.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Tell me, Mr. Powell, did former Governor
Carnahan's appointees to the Missouri Conservation Commission
support this biosphere reserve proposal?
Mr. Powell. Yes, they did.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to ask you, I am Chairman of the
Forestry Subcommittee in the House and we also are very
concerned about the centralized planning process that we now
seem to be engaged in, what effect it has had on our forests
across the nation. What we have seen is that there is less of a
multiple use sustained yield concepts being employed on the
ground and in large part because of designations of endangered
species habitat and now this new biosphere reserve would be
another program for an excuse not to have multiple use
sustained yield concepts employed in managing our forests.
How do you see the impact, the long-term impact, on
forestry if--and I hope the if is growing smaller, but if the
biosphere reserve is proposed as we have heard the concepts
proposed today--how would it affect the forests?
Mr. Powell. Well, I think it would completely shut the
Federal forests down, more so than now. They are almost shut
down at the present time because of the environmental movement,
but I am sure this could probably cap it off and eliminate the
usage of that. And of course, that would spread next to the
state land and then finally to private lands.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Testimony I heard before my Committee last
month or two months ago testified to the fact that our forests
on the Federal lands, especially in the northwest, but also
forests all over the nation, in some areas are in a state of
near collapse. Many of those forests are forests that have not
had on the ground management by humans employed. We have seen a
lot of disease and insect infestation and the potential for
catastrophic fires is growing. Do you see any of that
possibility here in the Mark Twain Forest?
Mr. Powell. I think it will eventually happen here. Of
course, they cut down personnel and the personnel that have
been cut from the Forest Service have been your professional
foresters and they have been replaced with biologists and
planning teams for recreation and things like that. They are
getting out of the timber growing business as far as usage is
concerned, and of course what happens with that when the timber
gets old and goes down hill, you are going to lose it. And of
course that is a major portion of the production of the wood
fibers that we need for the whole country. And that has put
tremendous pressure on the other parts of the United States and
especially the south, and of course that is the reason we are
having trouble in Missouri, they are trying to get additional
fiber for the market and they have moved up into the state of
Missouri to try to get this fiber. And if we want to be able to
eliminate that, what we need to do is to put the Forest Service
back in business for their original intent, to furnish wood
fiber for our nation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Ms. Denham. I am sorry to interrupt, but may I make a
request that I be able to submit additional exhibits to the
Committee for inclusion in the record?
Mrs. Chenoweth. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Denham. Thank you.
[The material referred to may be found at the end of the
hearing.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I see that my time is almost up too. I have
about five questions here for Mr. Yancey and I will submit
those in writing. I also have questions for Mr. Meyers.
I do want to say for Mr. Meyers how grateful I am to you
and all the veterans who have fought so valiantly not only in
World War II but the subsequent wars, to protect the very
freedoms that we stand a chance of losing if we do not stay
eternally vigilant. So Mr. Meyers, not only do I thank you from
the bottom of my heart for being an effective witness, but for
your service to the country. And our service to the country
does not end with military service, we must all be servants to
the country in fighting a battle that does not have clear
battle lines. But certainly if we lose the battle, we will lose
our land, our heritage, our godly values and our way of life.
So thank you all very, very much for your wonderful
testimony. And with that, this panel is dismissed and the Chair
calls Dale Lovett, Pulp and Paperworkers' Resource Council,
Wickliffe, Kentucky; Darrell Skiles, Missouri Cattlemen's
Association, Salem, Missouri; Leon Kreisler, Missouri Farm
Bureau, Salem, Missouri and Carl Barnes, Missouri Forest
Products Association and People for the USA, Potosi, Missouri.
I wonder if the panel could please stand and raise your arm
to the square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Dale Lovett
for opening testimony.
STATEMENT OF DALE LOVETT, PULP AND PAPERWORKERS' RESOURCE
COUNCIL, WICKLIFFE, KENTUCKY
Mr. Lovett. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to
thank you for this opportunity to be here today.
My name is Dale Lovett, I am a 15-year employee at the
Westvaco Fine Papers Mill located in Wickliffe, Kentucky. I am
also a very proud member of the Paper, Allied Industrial,
Chemical and Energy Workers International Union as well as a
Special Projects Director for the Pulp and Paper Workers
Resource Council which represents over 300,000 workers in the
wood products industry.
Today the wood products industry in America is struggling
to compete in the world economy. One major reason for this is
the ever-increasing restrictions placed on land use, on both
public and private land. Job losses are becoming an everyday
reality as restrictive forces shut down employers.
With UNESCO's World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserve
designations coming into play, we will only lose more jobs as
this simply adds to the limitations put on our natural
resources which we feel are already over-regulated.
In far western Kentucky, where I am from, no local
authorities or state officials were consulted prior to the
Tennessee Valley Authority/Land Between the Lakes recreation
area being selected as a United Nations Biosphere Reserve.
After becoming aware of this situation, the Kentucky Senate in
1997 passed a resolution stating its position to not be a part
of this program. However, it seems to not matter.
A recent lawsuit was brought against the Tennessee Valley
Authority by a special interest group to block a timber sale in
the Land Between the Lakes area. This lawsuit stated that
because the Land Between the Lakes had been designated as a
Biosphere Reserve, the timber sale should not be allowed to go
through. This designation simply represents another avenue to
use by special interest groups to control public and private
land as they so desire. Madam Chairman, the writing is on the
wall. These designations can and will be used against us.
As an American worker who understands how natural resources
are vital to any type of sound economic base, we can no longer
allow foreign nations, who are our competitors in the world
marketplace, to influence decisions that puts American workers
at a competitive disadvantage whether through UNESCO or any
other means. This is totally unacceptable.
In Kentucky, we call this putting the fox in charge of the
hen house.
The record is clear from the proposed mine development near
Crown Butte, Montana as to what these type of designations can
do to eliminate economic opportunity even on private land.
Again, the writing is on the wall.
Well-connected special interest groups who know how to use
the system can go basically undetected through the maze and web
of governmental bureaucracy to advance their cause. When these
groups are able to make world heritage sites and biosphere
reserve designations become a reality without the support of
Federal, state and local governments, then it is time for
legislation such as the American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act. And sometimes I think they view a lack of opposition in
their secret maneuvering the same as support. And that is one
way they say they have support, because nobody is opposing
them.
No organization or individual should ever have the ability
to negotiate or bargain away the power of Congress to make
decisions as to the territory or any property that belongs to
the United States of America.
It overwhelms me as to the need for legislation such as the
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. Who would ever have
thought our nation, the United States of America, would have
ever allowed foreign interests to share in the influence upon
the very land upon which our nation rests?
It is with great passion that I urge you to support this
piece of legislation as it will place the destiny of our great
nation back into the hearts and hands of those who truly care
for it.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Lovett. The Chair recognizes
Darrell Skiles for testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lovett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.194
STATEMENT OF DARRELL SKILES, MISSOURI CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION,
SALEM, MISSOURI
Mr. Skiles. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Darrell
Skiles, I am a lifelong resident of Salem, Missouri and I would
like to say that it is an honor and a privilege to address this
Committee on Resources here today. And on behalf of the
Missouri Cattlemen's Association we thank you for this
opportunity.
Property rights and the freedom to provide a living for our
families, with a minimal amount of influence from governmental
agencies, is centerpiece to the purpose of the Missouri
Cattlemen's Association. Few issues have stirred the emotions
of our members more than the recently proposed biosphere
reserve programs. And let me say here that considering the
previous testimony that has been given here today, much of my
presentation will be rather repetitious, but please bear with
me.
To discuss the Man in Biosphere program I must refer to the
January 1996 Coordinated Resource Management Draft Plan for the
Lower Ozark Region which consists of all or a portion of 15
counties in southern Missouri. The Coordinated Resource
Management Plan was produced by the Missouri Department of
Conservation in cooperation, or collusion, with the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service and the National
Park Service, along with several other non-governmental
organizations.
Prior to the release of this draft plan, the Missouri
Department of Conservation had held a series of meetings in
various locations around the state of Missouri for the purpose
of public input. The Cattlemen's Association had a
representative in attendance at a number of these meetings and
I personally attended the meeting held in Eminence, Missouri.
While I found several of the goals, objectives and/or
strategies in this plan objectionable from a private landowner
and cattle producer's perspective, the last goal, Goal IX, I
found to be the most interesting, and as I learned more about
it, by far the most onerous. Goal IX outlined the participating
agencies plans to ``support the establishment of an Ozark Man
and the Biosphere Cooperative in the region and work towards
implementation of its goals and objectives.'' The region being
more specifically the Current and Eleven Point River Watershed
in Missouri and Buffalo River Watershed in Arkansas,
encompassing over 3,200 square miles or more than two million
acres of land.
At the CRM meeting that I attended, I do not recall ever
hearing mention of any such plan, nor did any of my colleagues
at the Cattlemen's Association. It was also very interesting
that this Goal IX stated that ``a feasibility study for an
Ozark Man and the Biosphere Program in the region had
documented widespread support for this concept.'' In visiting
with friends, business associates and state and local public
officials, I found that there was virtually no one who had even
heard of such a program before, much less supported it. I made
an inquiry on January 18 of 1996 to the Missouri Department of
Conservation and received some interesting information from
Kelly McGrath, Missouri Department of Conservation Policy
Analyst.
This information showed me that a Feasibility Study Report
to the Ozark Man and the Biosphere Steering Committee had been
prepared in September of 1991. I learned from this report that
a biosphere reserve essentially consists of three areas of
land. A core area that is strictly managed to preserve its
natural resource values; a buffer zone or area of managed use
which would surround the core area; and third, the land
surrounding the managed use area would be called the area of
transition, where human settlements, farms, industries, et
cetera are allowed. Ms. McGrath further stated that the
agencies and entities included in this agreement would actually
own and control both the core area and the area of managed use.
It appears that several of our state and Federal agencies
and a select few private organizations had a grand scheme, or
scam, for massive land control and/or takeover.
I also learned that in the course of interviewing residents
of this region for this feasibility study, that the interviewer
chose to discuss concepts rather than describe in detail the
actual program, due to concerns that people might ``overreact
to another government program.'' The concepts discussed, it
appeared, did not mention anything about a consortium of state
and Federal agencies and particular organizations collectively
owning and controlling more land than they already possess,
which just in Shannon County alone adds up to over 300,000
acres.
This study also revealed that the Man and Biosphere program
is in fact a United Nations sponsored program. After the
January 1996 release of the CRM Draft Plan for the Lower Ozark
Region, many citizens began to raise serious questions and
concerns about various parts of this plan. By far, the vehement
objections were those pertaining to Goal IX and its Ozark Man
and the Biosphere concept.
Consequently, the Missouri Cattlemen's Association at its
February 11 '96 annual meeting overwhelmingly approved a
resolution opposing the Ozark Man and the Biosphere concept.
Madam Chairman, Ms. Emerson, it is more than a little
disconcerting to realize that our state and Federal agencies,
without the public's knowledge, had been working on
implementing this United Nations sponsored scheme for over six
years. Frankly, this leaves us worrying about what they are
doing or contemplating doing now without our knowledge and at
the urging of the United Nations or some other outside
interest.
These plans and programs are seemingly without the
necessary oversight and approval of the United States Congress.
As a result, I would like to offer the support of the Missouri
Cattlemen's Association for passage of H.R. 883, The American
Land Sovereignty Act. Both I and the cattlemen of Missouri
thank you for this opportunity to support H.R. 883 and I will
be happy to answer any questions.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Skiles. The Chair recognizes
Leon Kreisler for testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Skiles follows:]
Statement of Darrell Skiles, Missouri Cattlemen's Association, Salem,
Missouri
My name is Darrell Skiles, I am a lifelong resident of Dent
County Missouri. I would like to say that it is an honor and a
privilege to address this Committee on Resources here today. On
behalf of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association we thank you for
this opportunity.
The Missouri Cattlemen's Association (MCA) represents
Missouri's largest segment of the agriculture industry. The
Missouri beef industry provides a $6 billion impact to the
Missouri economy. Our property taxes and business supporting
expenditures provide the economic base that supports many of
Missouri's schools and local economies.
Property rights and the freedom to provide a living for our
families, with a minimal amount of influence from governmental
agencies, is centerpiece to the purpose of the Missouri
Cattlemen's Association. Few issues have stirred the emotions
of our members more than the recently proposed Biosphere
programs. These programs seem contrary to the fabric that built
this nation and this state.
To discuss the Man in Biosphere program I must first refer
to the January 1996 Coordinated Resource Management Draft Plan
for the Lower Ozark Region which consist of all or part of
fifteen counties in southern Missouri. The Coordinated Resource
Management Plan (CRM) was produced by the Missouri Department
of Conservation (MDC); in cooperation with the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service and the National
Park Service.
CRM is described in this plan as ``a voluntary program to
get government agencies and citizens working together to plan
for the long-term health of Missouri's natural resources.''
Prior to the release of this draft plan, MDC held a series of
meetings in various locations around the state of Missouri for
the purpose of public input. MCA had a representative in
attendance at a number of these meetings and I personally
attended the meeting held in Eminence, Missouri.
While I found several of the goals, objectives and/or
strategies in this plan objectionable from a private landowner
and cattle producer's perspective, the last goal, GOAL IX I
found to be the most interesting, and as I learned more about
it by far the most onerous. GOAL IX outlined the participating
agency plans to ``support the establishment of an Ozark Man and
the Biosphere Cooperative in the region and work towards
implementation of its goals and objectives.'' The region being
more specifically the Current and Eleven Point river watershed
in Missouri and Buffalo River watershed in Arkansas,
encompassing some 3,200 square miles or more than two million
acres of land.
At the CRM meeting that I attended I do not recall ever
hearing mention of any such plan, nor did any of my colleagues
at MCA. It was also very interesting that this GOAL IX stated
``a feasibility study for an `Ozark Man and the Biosphere'
program in the region documented widespread support for the
concept.'' In visiting with friends, business associates, and
state and local public officials I found that there was
virtually no one who had even heard of such a program before,
much less supported it. I made an inquiry on January 18, 1996
to MDC and received some interesting information from Kelly
McGrath, MDC Policy Analyst.
This information showed me that a Feasibility Study Report
to the Ozark Man and the Biosphere Steering Committee had been
prepared in September 1991. I learned from this report that a
biosphere reserve essentially consists of three areas of land.
A ``core area'' that is strictly managed to preserve its
natural resource values; a ``buffer zone'' or ``area of managed
use'' would surround the ``core area''; and the land
surrounding the ``managed use area'' is called the ``area of
transition,'' where human settlements, farms, industry, etc.
are allowed. Ms. McGrath stated that the agencies and entities
included in the cooperative agreement would actually own and
control both the ``core area'' and the ``area of managed use.''
It appears that several of our state and Federal agencies
and a select few private organizations had a grand scheme--or
maybe scam--for massive land control and/or takeover.
I also learned that in the course of interviewing residents
of this region for this feasibility study that the interviewer
chose to discuss ``concepts'' rather than describe in detail
the ``actual program'' due to concerns that people might
``overreact to another government program.'' The ``concepts''
discussed it appears did not mention anything about a
consortium of state, Federal agencies and particular
organizations collectively owning and controlling more land
than they already possess, which in Shannon County alone adds
up to nearly 300,000 acres.
This study also revealed that the Man and Biosphere program
is in fact; a United Nations sponsored program. After the
January 1996 release of the CRM Draft Plan for the Lower Ozark
Region many citizens began to raise serious questions and
concerns about various parts of this plan. By far, the most
vehement objections were those pertaining to GOAL IX and its
``Ozark Man and the Biosphere'' concept.
The MCA membership, at its February 1996 Annual meeting,
overwhelmingly approved a resolution opposing the ``Ozark Man
and the Biosphere'' concept. It is more than a little
disconcerting to realize that our state and Federal agencies,
without the public's knowledge, had been working on
implementing this United Nations sponsored scheme for over six
years. Frankly this leaves us worrying about what they are
doing or contemplating doing now without our knowledge at the
urging of the United Nations or some other outside interest.
These plans and programs are seemingly without the
necessary oversight and approval of the United States Congress.
As a result, I would like to offer the support of the Missouri
Cattlemen's Association for passage of H.R. 863, The American
Land Sovereignty Act. My written testimony includes the
references, notes and documents I have discussed with you
today. Both I, and the cattlemen of Missouri thank you for this
opportunity to support H.R. 863. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.207
STATEMENT OF LEON KREISLER, MISSOURI FARM BUREAU, SALEM,
MISSOURI
Mr. Kreisler. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Congressman
Emerson. I would like to welcome you to Rolla and to our great
state of Missouri.
My name is Leon Kreisler and I raise cattle on a farm near
Salem, Missouri which is approximately 25 miles southeast of
here. I am representing the Missouri Farm Bureau, the state's
largest general farm organization. I am a past President of the
Dent County Farm Bureau and currently serve on the Farm
Bureau's Natural Resource and Environment Committee.
It is indeed an honor to speak to you today about issues
that strike at the very heart of landowners across the country.
Whether we are discussing biosphere reserves, heritage
corridors, rails-to-trails, local ordinances and even timber
management, the protection of property rights remains one of
the nation's fundamental principles. Today, it is all too
common for landowners' rights to be called into question by
individuals, organizations and officials with a long agenda,
big pocketbooks, little common sense and no land. For this
reason, I commend Congressman Young----
[Applause.]
Mr. Kreisler. [continuing] and the cosponsors of H.R. 883,
the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, for leading
efforts to solidify protections that are currently in question.
First, in 1997, the Missouri Farm Bureau and several other
groups learned of plans to nominate a portion of the Lower
Ozarks as a Biosphere Reserve under the Man and the Biosphere
Program. As more information became available, questions arose
about the purpose, scope and implications of the nomination.
Several public meetings were held in the Ozarks and speakers
familiar with biosphere reserves in other regions were
featured. It was not long before many landowners expressed a
very legitimate concern about the Lower Ozark's nomination.
Ultimately, the Missouri Farm Bureau opposed the proposal by
adopting the following policy: ``We are opposed to any effort
in which the control or management of land or natural resources
of the United States is relinquished or diminished in any way
by treaty or other means to the United Nations or any other
foreign body. This applies to activities such as biosphere
reserves or others that have been proposed by local, state,
Federal or international agencies or organizations.''
Specifically, we are concerned that Man and the Biosphere
Program operates without legislative authorization from
Congress, yet puts landowners in a position of abiding to
international land use designations. And we remain concerned
about the process in which sites are nominated--a process that
must ensure input and consensus from all affected parties.
Throughout this process, it was especially disturbing to
note the level of distrust which landowners have for
government, some would say ``a devil behind every tree.'' But,
despite the rhetoric spewed from environmental zealots, this
distrust stems from past actions and policy. In Missouri,
landowners' distrust of government relative to property rights
can be traced to several initiatives.
In 1989, Missouri landowners were dealt a severe blow in
court as the Federal Government prevailed in a lawsuit that
created a recreational trail on an abandoned rail line.
Landowner rights were ignored as the courts determined that
easements granted to the railroad did not revert back to the
landowner upon cessation of rail service but could be
transferred to the state for an entirely different purpose with
no compensation to landowners. The Kay Trail has not been
developed, however, the wounds for many landowners will never
heal. We are pleased that a class action lawsuit is pending in
which the affected landowners could receive some level of
compensation for their loss.
In 1990, Missourians soundly defeated a measure that would
have altered production agriculture by severely restricting the
rights of farmers and ranchers. Fortunately, most people saw
the Natural Streams Act for what it was and it was defeated
soundly. Despite this legacy, the environmental community soon
found a suitable replacement in the form of a program entitled
Coordinated Resource Management. While the stated purpose of
agencies working together toward common regional goals was
laudable, landowners viewed the program as a threat to property
rights.
In Clay County, some 200 miles northwest of Rolla,
officials now require a special use permit for agricultural
production. In this area, urban sprawl has resulted in rezoning
of agricultural land to residential, commercial and even
industrial. As farming becomes an island in the sea of
development, producers are being forced to obtain permits to
continue earning a living.
And as we speak, the Governor's Committee on Chip Mills is
studying issues associated with timber management in Missouri.
The Committee's work will not be completed until late this
year, however, their discussion has included regulation of not
only public land but privately-owned land as well.
Madam Chairman and Congressman Emerson, we feel strongly
about property rights, not because we share a common desire to
abuse our natural resources, but because landowners are best-
suited to ensure productivity for our families and those of
future generations. The good intentions of many public
officials and environmentalists are nothing but a front for
more regulation. The Ozarks are a natural wonder and we intend
to keep it that way, but national or international designations
involving more bureaucracy and regulation are not the answer.
Rather, we should continue to focus on the proven combination
of voluntary--and I stress voluntary--incentive-based programs,
technical assistance and education.
Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Kreisler. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Carl Barnes for Missouri Forest Products
Association and People for the USA, for testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kreisler follows:]
Statement of Leon Kreisler, Member, Missouri Farm Bureau
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I welcome you to
Rolla and the great state of Missouri. My name is Leon Kreisler
and I raise cattle in Salem, about 25 miles south of Rolla. I
am representing Missouri Farm Bureau, the state's largest
general farm organization. I am a past President of Dent County
Farm Bureau and currently serve on Farm Bureau's Natural
Resource and Environment Committee.
It is indeed an honor to speak with you today about issues
that strike at the very heart of landowners across the country.
Whether we are discussing biosphere reserves, heritage
corridors, rails-to-trails, local ordinances, and even timber
management, the protection of property rights remains one of
the nation's fundamental principals. Today, it is all too
common for landowners' rights to be called into question by
individuals, organizations and officials with a long agenda,
big pocketbooks, little common sense and no land. For this
reason, I commend Congressman Young and the cosponsors of H.R.
883, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, for leading
efforts to solidify protections that are currently in question.
In 1997, Missouri Farm Bureau and several other groups
learned of plans to nominate a portion of the Lower Ozarks as a
Biosphere Reserve under the Man and the Biosphere Program. As
more information became available, questions arose about the
purpose, scope and implications of the nomination. Several
public meetings were held in the Ozarks and speakers familiar
with biosphere reserves in other regions were featured. It
wasn't long before many landowners expressed a very legitimate
concern about the Lower Ozarks nomination. Ultimately, Missouri
Farm Bureau opposed the proposal by adopting the following
policy, ``We are opposed to any effort in which the control or
management of land or natural resources of the United States is
relinquished or diminished in any way by treaty or other means
to the United Nations or any other foreign body. This applies
to activities such as bioreserves or others that have been
proposed by local, state, Federal or international agencies or
organizations.''
Specifically, we are concerned the Man and the Biosphere
Program operates without legislative authorization from
Congress yet puts landowners in a position of abiding to
international land use designations. And we remain concerned
about the process in which sites are nominated--a process that
must ensure input and consensus from all affected parties.
Throughout this process, it was especially disturbing to
note the level of distrust which landowners have for
government, a ``devil behind every tree'' as some would say.
But, despite the rhetoric spewed from environmental zealots,
this distrust stems from past actions and policy. In Missouri,
landowners' distrust of government relative to property rights
can be traced to several initiatives.
In 1989, Missouri landowners were dealt a severe blow in
court as the Federal Government prevailed in a lawsuit that
created a recreational trail on an abandoned rail line.
Landowner rights were ignored as the courts determined that
easements granted to the railroad did not revert back to the
landowner upon cessation of rail service but could be
transferred to the state for an entirely different purpose with
no compensation to landowners. The Katy Trail has now been
developed, however the wounds for many landowners will never
heal. We are pleased that a class-action lawsuit is pending in
which the affected landowners could receive some level of
compensation for their loss.
In 1990, Missourians soundly defeated a measure that would
have altered production agriculture by severely restricting the
rights of farmers and ranchers. Fortunately, most people saw
the Natural Streams Act for what it was and it was defeated
soundly. Despite this legacy, the environmental community soon
found a suitable replacement in the form of a program entitled
Coordinated Resource Management (CRM). While the stated purpose
of agencies working together toward common regional goals was
laudable, landowners viewed the program as a threat to property
rights.
In Clay County, some 200 miles northwest of Rolla,
officials now require a ``Special Use'' permit for agricultural
production. In this area, urban sprawl has resulted in rezoning
of agricultural land to residential, commercial and even
industrial. As farming becomes an island in the sea of
development, producers are being forced to obtain permits to
continue earning a living.
And as we speak, the Governor's Committee on Chip Mills is
studying issues associated with timber management in Missouri.
The Committee's work will not be completed until late this
year, however their discussion has included regulation of not
only public land but privately-owned land as well.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, we feel strongly
about property rights not because we share a common desire to
abuse our natural resources but because landowners are best-
suited to ensure productivity for our families and those of
future generations. The good intentions of many public
officials and environmentalists are nothing but a front for
more regulation. The Ozarks are a natural wonder and we intend
to keep it that way, but national or international designations
involving more bureaucracy and regulation are not the answer.
Rather, we should continue to focus on the proven combination
of voluntary, incentive-based programs, technical assistance
and education.
STATEMENT OF CARL BARNES, MISSOURI FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION
AND PEOPLE FOR THE USA, POTOSI, MISSOURI
Mr. Barnes. Madam Chairman, Ms. Emerson, three years ago,
Missourians first became aware of efforts to plan and
potentially control public and private property. The
Coordinated Resource Management planning process that you have
heard so much about today was a project led by our state
Conservation Department that involved multiple state and
Federal agencies and a number of non-governmental
organizations. Central to CRM was a goal to implement a ``Ozark
Man and the Biosphere Cooperative in the region.''
The first draft CRM plan issued, again as we have all heard
many times today, in January of 1996, caused me and many other
citizens to try to understand the implications of the CRM
initiative. In April 1996, many of us communicated our opinions
to the Conservation Department in response to their request for
public comment on the CRM plan.
Before reviewing my conclusions regarding CRM and Man and
the Biosphere type initiatives, let me address one other
reaction to CRM. CRM led to a number of conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories were fanned by the involvement first of
Federal agencies and then even more by CRM's connections to the
United Nations and various NGOs.
I believe conspiracy theories distract us from the
important issues, for the following reasons:
First, conspiracy theories are unnecessary. We need
to guard our rights regardless of whether they are
being threatened by well-meaning but misguided people
or by a plot hatched by Al Gore colluding with the
United Nations.
Second, conspiracy theories infer guilt on a broad
group of people. Yet we know, at least at the grass
roots level, that many well-meaning people unwittingly
support extreme environmentalism.
And third, conspiracy theories give way too much
credit to the people accused of implementing them.
The January 1996 issuance of the CRM plan led to
substantial analysis and review on my part. I concluded that
CRM and the Man and the Biosphere type programs suffer from the
following deficiencies:
First, concrete and quantifiable benefits are not
available. For example, the CRM draft plan included
only soft strategies to accomplish its goal including,
``to research,'' ``become knowledgeable,'' ``foster,''
``work with,'' ``develop information,'' and so on.
Nowhere did it discuss specific benefits associated
with these strategies.
Second, specific costs also were not addressed. Since
neither costs nor benefits are analyzed, there was no
cost justification for these programs.
Third, these programs and the assumptions underlying
them were and are not based on sound, objective and
non-political science.
Fourth, there is no evidence that programs like these
will work. These proposals involve massive efforts with
no confidence that they can actually achieve anything,
and they are to be implemented only on a large scale.
Proposals for these programs are very short on
specifics, either because the people behind them do not
know the specifics or do not want to disclose the
specifics. For either reason, the lack of specifics is
most troubling.
Five, there is no analysis of the effect of these
programs on our overall economy. Based on the limited
specifics about how the programs would work, the
economic consequences could be devastating.
Six, these programs are bad public policy. While
today's intent may be not to regulate property, these
programs put in place mechanisms that easily could lead
to increased government control of private and public
lands. The CRM, for example, listed farming and mining
as ``potential threats'' to outdoor recreation and
ecosystem health. The risk is too great that biosphere
reserve type programs, like programs such as the
Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Acts will escape
the control of their creators and take on an ever-
growing life of their own.
And seven, the selective inclusion of non-
governmental organizations in the planning process
increases further skepticism regarding the objectives
and objectivity of these programs. The lack of
legislative involvement, either Congressional or state,
raises serious concerns about a lack of accountability
by elected officials. As we have heard, the New World
Mine project in Montana illustrated this when the U.N.
declared it a ``World Heritage Site in Danger,''
thereby blocking the development of a mine. There are
real concerns about giving up our rights and
compromising our sovereignty.
Man and the Biosphere, Global Biodiversity Treaty,
Wildlands Projects and Coordinated Resource Management type
programs reflect bad public policy, bad science and bad
economics. They appear to be solutions looking for problems. I,
therefore, support strongly H.R. 883.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.212
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Barnes. And I want to thank
this panel for your outstanding testimony.
The Chair recognizes Congressman Emerson for questions.
Ms. Emerson. Thank you.
Let me ask all of you, and I know, Mr. Barnes, you just
indicated that you had never been given anything that is very
concise, but I want to go back and ask the question I asked the
last panel and that is have any of you ever received a clear,
concise explanation about what a biosphere reserve is, from any
Federal or state agency pushing this whole concept?
Mr. Barnes. No.
Mr. Kreisler. No.
Mr. Skiles. No, nothing clear and concise.
Mr. Lovett. No.
Ms. Emerson. Well, I guess that ought to tell us something,
they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
For everybody, what is your perception or what is in your
mind the difference between a United Nations Biosphere Reserve
and a United States Biosphere Reserve?
Mr. Skiles. From everything I have been able to read about
the two, I cannot make any distinction, difference in them at
all really, they seem to be one and the same. Frankly I see
very little difference.
Ms. Emerson. How about the rest of you all?
Mr. Lovett. I think they meet the same goals and objectives
and evidently they are working right along hand in hand. It
seems to be one and the same.
Ms. Emerson. Mr. Kreisler.
Mr. Kreisler. They appear to be the same to me also.
Mr. Barnes. I believe either we have not had enough
information to tell that there is a difference or there is not
a difference.
Ms. Emerson. Okay, I appreciate that.
And this can go to all of you as well, I think the first
argument I got into on the House floor with one of my
colleagues--actually it was one of my colleagues from
California who thinks this idea about World Heritage Sites and
Biosphere Reserves is the cat's meow, if you will, and thinks
it is a great idea. And he, along with other people have said,
you know, JoAnn, this is ridiculous, you are worried about
nothing. The fact of the matter is that having this designation
is going to increase tourism because of this international
recognition and it is going to give you all more jobs.
Now I would like to know what your comments are about that.
Do you think that this designation will increase tourism
because of some international recognition?
Mr. Lovett. I would like to respond to that. I am not
willing for your colleague to give up my job, which I make good
wages and I have benefits, I can send my kids to school without
a government grant or a loan--I do not want a part time $10,000
a year job working in the tourist industry as a guide. You can
tell him for my part, no, thank you.
Ms. Emerson. Do you know how to meditate?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lovett. I may have to learn.
Ms. Emerson. I think so.
Mr. Skiles. Well, it appears to me that if the people in
California want more tourism, then the desire for that should
come from the people themselves and they should initiate the
programs to get more tourism into their area themselves. I am
always a little skeptical when a representative of the
government comes to me and says I know you did not invite me
here, but I am here to help you.
Ms. Emerson. You should be skeptical.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Skiles. But along that line, it occurs to me that just
a few years ago, a couple or three or four years ago perhaps,
the Missouri Department of Health issued a warning that the
Current and Jack's Forks River on the day following the
heaviest canoeing weekend, that those rivers were unsafe and
unfit for human use due to human fecal coliform bacteria in
those rivers. Now that was not put there because of farming
activities or logging activities, that was there from tourism.
So I think there is a real question how much tourism can the
area withstand before----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Emerson. I am very familiar with the same findings. It
is a shame that the national news media does not print those
findings, I suppose.
Mr. Kreisler.
Mr. Kreisler. The only thing I might say is I do not see
how they create areas with no human involvement, how that is
going to increase tourism.
Ms. Emerson. Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Barnes. Well, I would like to see hard evidence of that
somewhere else, but I also believe that it is offensive for
someone in California or Washington to tell us what we should
be doing with our space.
Ms. Emerson. How true.
[Applause.]
Ms. Emerson. Madam Chairman, I am going to go off on the
green light, thank you all.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Congressman Emerson.
I wanted to ask Mr. Barnes, I understand that you have in
your other life worked for Price Waterhouse.
Mr. Barnes. That is correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, then you can probably give me an
opinion on this. What would be the impact on the private
citizen for misspending government funds? For instance, if they
were given funds to put down on a home, like a veteran or
through Farmers Home Administration or whatever, they took the
money and they spent it for something else, what would be the
legal impact?
Mr. Barnes. I am not a lawyer, but I think the consequences
could be very drastic in terms of that person being prosecuted
for that misuse.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, is it a stretch of the imagination to
wonder how agents of the Federal Government who have never had
money appropriated for this particular program are authorizing
legislation for a particular program such as this or the
American Heritage Rivers initiative, should not as individuals,
they also need to stand accountable for the way they spend the
taxpayers' money?
Mr. Barnes. I would certainly think so. Appropriations
carry with them the purpose for which the funds can be spent.
And I think in most cases, they are relatively specific about
that.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting. I think it is something
that we need to carefully consider, not only in the political
area, but the legal area.
I also find it interesting that the New World Mine, private
property seizing, the government viewed it--the Canadian
leasehold interests, the government viewed it as a taking and
therefore, reimbursed the Canadian leasehold interests $65
million. Do you feel that establishes a precedent here in
America--another precedent for the government compensating
under a taking situation?
Mr. Barnes. Well, I think what happened with regard to that
mine, they set a number of bad precedents and I am not really
an expert on the takings clause, but I think it was a horrible
misuse of Federal power.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It was a horrible misuse of international
power that was assumed and the taxpayers had to pay for it. I
think that we all agree that we would far rather have our land
to live on and work on and sustain our livelihood from.
I thank you, Mr. Barnes, for your fine answers and
thoughtful answers.
Dale Lovett, you know my friend Jerry Clem from Lewiston?
Mr. Lovett. Very well.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I really appreciate the good work that your
organization does.
Mr. Lovett. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It has been quite outstanding and quite
effective in not only representing your membership, but
effective on public policy, especially with regard to these
land use issues, and I just encourage you to keep up the good
work.
Mr. Lovett. You can count on it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I want to ask you how will the Biosphere
Reserve designations affect your job as a papermaker and also
continuing the line of questioning that I pursued with the last
panel, how will it affect the future of the forest and the
forest health.
Mr. Lovett. Well, Madam Chairman, I just see it as another
nail in the coffin for our industry. We have lost thousands of
jobs in the last few years due to government regulation
specifically, as you are aware of, in the Pacific Northwest
area. These designations are just even more pressure on our
industry, on our farmers and on our miners. The people who have
a vested interest in the property and do use it wisely, they
are just actually restricting us from being the true
environmentalists, is the way I see it.
It is ironic that they think the environmental groups like
Sierra Club paint themselves a picture that they are the true
caretakers of the environment. Well, I do not know of any
projects that they have that are using the labor that we are
involved in, putting the trees back into the land, making sure
we do not have erosion problems and that kind of thing. I could
go on and on, but I just see it having a devastating effect on
our industry for lack of fiber supply.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Very interesting, your answer. I find it
fascinating that the paperworkers who work in the mill and also
are loggers will find themselves on the weekend going back into
the forests for recreation, they love it and their love of the
land is patently obvious.
Mr. Kreisler, you stated that today it is all too common
for landowners' rights to be called into question by
individuals, organizations, officials ``with a long agenda, big
pocketbooks, little common sense and no land.'' I agree with
you very much, but I note that the enemies of private property
have really perverted our language and have begun to redefine
those commonly held values in their new definitions.
But as John Adams said, it is very interesting, but he said
that this government, this form of government will work only if
we have a moral people, and only if we have a framework that
can protect and enforce the right of private ownership.
Tell me how generally you believe this particular program
would affect farm production and our ability to compete in the
world market under NAFTA/GATT and the WPO.
Mr. Kreisler. I do not know if I understand your question
completely, but if you are talking about the biosphere reserve
occurring in this area, even though I might not be in this no
human area, what it will do, it will drive out a lot of
producers. It may not be me, but it will make it much harder
for my suppliers to stay in business because they have lost
customers, not only machinery dealers, auction places. Then
that would make me go farther for services and make my expenses
go up. And the world trade is where most of the market is and
that would drive out low cost producers in an area like
Missouri, and therefore, I think it would be harder for
American cattlemen to compete in the world market.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Skiles, would you like to add to that
comment?
Mr. Skiles. Yes, I would. Just in the Lower Ozark region
alone, in which this biosphere reserve was proposed, this area
produces over one million tons of hay a year, there are nearly
a million head of cattle in that area. So this area is not like
it is devoid of agriculture right now, it is a major
agricultural area as well.
There are a couple of main points about this biosphere
reserve designation though and the literature that we have read
associated with that, that I want to comment on. One of those
was the fact that in the information about biosphere reserves
and in the Coordinated Resource Management plan, we see fescue
being related to or being alluded to as an exotic, alien or
invasive species in the same sentence with lus thistle. Now
Missouri is second only to Texas in the number of cows in this
state and that is pretty significant. The beef industry in
Missouri is a $6 billion a year industry. There seemed to be a
concern through the biosphere reserve literature and in the CRM
plan that fescue needed to be gotten rid of and I can assure
you that the economy in Missouri will suffer drastically if
something happens to fescue, that it starts dying tomorrow.
The other thing in this thing that really concerned us was
that throughout the biosphere reserve literature, they mention
the reintroduction of threatened or endangered species. And I
know I do not have to remind you the lands that these
introduced species will take up residence on would most likely
then fall under additional restrictive regulation. And you
know, if these things happen, then basically people are going
to have to throw their arms up and forget it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank you very much for your testimony
and your comments. The Endangered Species Act is something that
we must deal with; however, with this White House, we know that
if we send in a new endangered species reform act, that it
would be promptly vetoed.
I have learned since I have been here in Missouri, that you
are having to work around the gnat and a bat and various other
things. I find that down in the southeastern states they have
the red-cockaded woodpecker that is now, because of its
breeding habitat, it is now altering take off and landing
patterns from various Air Force bases. And I find it hard to
understand that a bird that beats its head all day long on a
log for food can be upset with a plane flying overhead.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. But that is the mentality that we have to
deal with.
Ms. Emerson. Madam Chairman, would you yield just for a
moment?
Mrs. Chenoweth. I will yield.
Ms. Emerson. I would like you to know that we also have a
problem with two black bears. Since we are talking about
humorous stories, I might add that in trying to four-lane
highway 60 across the state, we ran into a big problem with two
black bears and we needed to--in building the highway, in
constructing and designing it, we had to accommodate those two
black bears, so that they might be able to mate in an upright
position.
And I apologize, you all in the audience who might think
that that is something that I should not mention in public, but
the fact that we would be paying--you know, the taxpayers would
be asked to pay $15 more million than you would have had to
otherwise, so that these black bears could walk up right under
a road, I think is an outrageous invasion of our privacy, and
stealing taxpayer money from us. But this is the mentality of
those with whom we deal on a daily basis.
Mrs. Chenoweth. It is a crazy mentality, and thanks for
adding that to the record.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I enjoyed it very much. It is really
unbelievable.
I would like to thank this panel very much for your
valuable testimony and for your work on this issue and for
taking time off on this beautiful Saturday to join us and
contribute to the record.
I will now excuse the panel and I would like to call the
following seven people, who have signed up here to speak at our
open mike session for one minute. We will accept testimony from
them for one minute. So if the following seven people could
please come up: Joe Cooke, Bill Jud, David Bright, Ray Hicks,
Marge Welch, Frank Floyd and Junior Williams.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The hearing will come to order, please. And
I wonder if the next witnesses would raise your hand to the
square.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you and you will be welcomed for
testimony for one minute. If you have written testimony and you
would like to submit it to the record, you have 10 working days
to do so.
And now we will hear from Joe Cooke.
STATEMENT OF JOE COOKE
Mr. Cooke. Thank you very much, I appreciate this privilege
to be able to speak.
This is more or less extemporaneous because I just wrote it
down when I came in. But there are some points that I think
ought to be made because I do not think people are aware of it.
There was an individual who was running for the office of
President, he said he wanted to reinvent government and boy, he
has done it. And the point we miss is this--we ask the question
what happened to Congress, he told Congress that he did not
care whether they approved the biodiversity treaty--this was Al
Gore, whose cohort on the approval of the Kyoto Protocol said
they did not need the Senate. This is where government got
reinvented. They would run it through the agencies and through
the NGOs and Congress, as far as I am concerned, could just go,
they do not need them except maybe to appropriate money.
And the people are still appalled at why Congress has not
done anything. I know it is an embarrassing thing and I do not
mean to embarrass you all, because we appreciate you being
here, we feel greatly honored that you are here. Now I will
look at my notes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cooke. Basically, they have shifted the power. The
power was to be divided into legislative, executive and
judicial. And all they have done now is run it through the
executive.
I would like to make one other point, and it has been made
by this Committee. A lot of times we overlook the greatest
power that we have. It is in the county courthouses, it is in
the land use committees, it is in the people. And I have been
preaching this for a long time. The people hold the power, the
people hold the land, the people pay the taxes. And no foreign
international group has the right to come into this country and
tell us what to do in the United States of America. As long as
that red, white and blue flag flies, we are safe, but if we
ever have to pull it down for the blue and white rag of the
U.N.; no. They want to send our people to Kosovo; no. This is
it, pure and simple.
I might get wound up. I think I have said enough. But it is
in the county courthouses, it is in the county government.
I talked to a man yesterday and I told him, I said you
know, you are the most powerful man in the United States in
Oregon County. I was talking to the Sheriff. I appreciate your
bill.
I think I will yield, I think I have spent more than a
minute.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooke follows:]
Statement of Joe Cooke, Alton, Missouri
Government is power! Power is vital for the control and
continuous exercise of authority over the persons, places, and
things within certain established boundaries. How that power is
controlled is the difference between freedom and bondage. Our
great nation was founded on the basis that life, liberty, and
prosperity are God-given rights, and government, by the consent
of the governed, was to protect these unalienable rights. Out
of these principles was born the oldest living Constitution in
the world resulting in the oldest and most successful
government and prosperous nation on earth. Who would want, and
why would anyone want, to ``reinvent'' our system of
government? Enemies! Wouldn't it be necessary to change or
amend our Constitution?
Today our present administration provides the answers. The
pieces for reinvention are being put into place without the
consent of Congress or the people. Our entire governmental
process is now being run and controlled solely by the
administrative branch of the United States Government by the
use of executive orders, presidential directives, mandates,
regulations, and by and through agencies and special interest
groups (particularly environmental). These nongovernmental
groups, NGO's, are not only financed by our tax dollars but
they also enjoy diplomatic immunity via executive order.
Treaties, which have a profound effect upon the lives and
sovereignty of this nation, are blatently carried out without
proper ratification of the United States Senate--specifically
Biosphere Reserves, World Heritage sites, and RAMSAR
designations under United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Americans fought and died for
this land. Let not their blood and sacrifices be cursed by
allowing any foreign power jurisdiction over United States'
soil.
It is imperative that H.R. 883 and S. 510 be passed with a
large enough majority to override a veto. America is the hope
of the world--the single greatest hope to save us from the grip
and domination of multi-national corporations, international
bankers, and globalist elite. Some believe it is too late to be
saved from the socialist new world order. Christians know
otherwise. Pagans can always be defeated when a nation turns to
God.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Cook and you are absolutely
right.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would like to urge all of you from the
various counties to realize that your county land use plans can
have as much or more power than the Federal plans but you must
get organized on that basis. And if you need help, I know of a
few people who can come in and help you organize and put
together a very effective county plan so you can maintain your
counties in the kind of land use that you know historically
works not only for the production of the land, but also for the
welfare of the people.
And now, Bill Jud. You will notice that your lights will be
signaling you, Bill. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BILL JUD
Mr. Jud. I am the Vice President of the Annapolis, Missouri
Chapter of People for the USA and I would just like to quote
out of Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It says,
talking about the President, ``Before he enters on the
execution of his office, he shall take the following oath: I do
solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of
President of the United States and will, to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States.''
I maintain that none of this would be necessary if Clinton,
Gore, et al actually honored their oath of office. They do not,
they daily dishonor their oath of office and that is what got
us into this problem.
When this biosphere reserve thing started, my contribution
to the defense was that I wrote a number of newspaper articles,
had them published all over southern Missouri, and what I did
was basically get a hold of the Wildlands Project, get a hold
of Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the
President's Council on Sustainable Development, and all of this
material and simply presented the material in these documents
to the people in southern Missouri. And of course, I caught a
lot of flack over this because people were saying geez, black
helicopters, this guy is a radical, we have got to watch out
for him.
Well, none of this was my ideas, what I was doing was
taking the material presented by the United Nations, people
like the Park Service, people like the Sierra Club, Audubon, et
al, and simply made this available to the public. If the people
thought that these were radical and unAmerican,
unconstitutional ideas, I agreed with them, but they were not
my ideas, they were the ideas of the people who were proposing
these things.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well said, well said.
Mr. Jud. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much, Mr. Jud.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. The Chair recognizes David Bright.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BRIGHT
Mr. Bright. My name is David Bright and I am from Newton
County, Arkansas and I just really want to thank you for
coming. I was able to testify on American River Heritage
initiative that you chaired in Washington and this one, H.R.
883 is even closer to my heart. I live half a mile from what
would have been a core area on this biosphere and I grew up in
a community that is totally gone now because of the Buffalo
National River. They condemned land and moved my neighbors out.
But I want to thank you for being here and I want to thank
Representative Emerson for having you here.
One good thing that come out of this, I knew most of the
people that testified here. I was one of those people that
really thought Washington was looking out for me and I did not
pay much attention to what they were doing before I found out
about a biosphere, which I did not think could happen in
America. And when I found out it not only could but was fixing
to happen to me, I talked to a lot of communities around here
and met a lot of these people. And I know some Karen and Bud
Fallons and some Burt Smiths because of it and it has been a
real experience for me.
And of course we are always talking to the same group, you
are here because you know that. And those that are home do not
know it and you cannot seem to tell them about it. But it is
worth the effort to try, we need to be involved in this
government if it is going to be our government.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. I just wanted you to know that you
mentioned two people who are very near and dear to my heart,
they are real great people.
Marge Welch, you are recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARGE WELCH
Ms. Welch. Madam Chairman, Representative Emerson, I am
Marge Welch, field director for People for the USA. I want to
thank you all for bringing this official Congressional hearing
to Missouri to hear testimony from the people.
I speak today on behalf of our 26,000 national membership
along with our 51 affiliate groups, combined membership of
250,000 members. We stand in strong support of H.R. 883. It
will help protect the multiple use principles of the public
lands and private property rights.
We deeply appreciate Congressman Young's introduction of
the bill and your cosponsorship. Thank you very much. We are
committed toward working toward getting this bill on through
the Senate. I think we will probably need a veto proof
majority, but we will be working on that. We have to return
oversight of land management decisions to you, the U.S.
Congress, our elected officials.
We have the greatest form of government in the world, our
forefathers paid dearly for that--our representative form of
democracy. These U.N. designations place that precious
principle in jeopardy. H.R. 883 will help protect that and put
agencies back within their Constitutional boundaries. There are
no Constitutional boundaries for the U.N. committee. They are
not even mentioned in our Constitution.
We will keep our watch also on the back door implementation
that could be possible through agency rules and regulations and
we will bring those to you also at another time.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Marge.
Mr. Ray Hicks.
STATEMENT OF RAY HICKS
Mr. Hicks. Madam Chairman and Congressman Emerson, it is a
pleasure to have you here in Rolla, it really is.
I am a landowner in Phelps County, I own about two-thirds
of an acre of ground, I like to garden. And I also work for a
local radio station here in a number of different contexts.
What bothers me is not so much the effect that something
like we have been talking about here might have on my two-
thirds of an acre of ground, but just what is happening in our
state, what is happening across the country.
I think Mr. Barnes a little while ago made reference to
conspiracy theories. I have told people about nothing more than
this biosphere reserve idea as it has been put forth, and get
accused of being a conspiracy theorist. So I guess it depends
on how you define that. I think Mr. Lovett and Mr. Skiles hit
upon something really crucial in all this, is that these
entities that are trying to put this stuff forward, when they
hear no response, they take it as a positive response. And that
is very dangerous. I do not know why the mainstream media does
not pay more attention to things like heritage sites, biosphere
reserves. I will tell people that I see that, you know, it is
not the people that own the property that have the say over
their property in a situation like this, it is some foreign
body, and they find it hard to believe.
I think it is incumbent on everybody here to tell your
relatives, tell your friends, your next door neighbors, the
people you work with about this stuff that is going on. If the
mainstream media will not spread the word, let us spread the
word, we have got to get it out.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Frank. And I wonder if before you start your testimony,
you could state your full name for the record, it will make it
easier on the court reporter.
STATEMENT OF FRANK FLOYD
Mr. Floyd. It is Frank Floyd. I would like to thank you,
Madam Chairman and Congressman Emerson, for having this
hearing.
Madam Chairman, I have often wanted to thank you for your
work on property rights and other Constitution rights, trying
to protect them. I never ever thought of having a chance to
thank you personally, but I am going to take this chance and
thank you. Thank you.
A lot of people are saying what they are. Well, I am a
common person, the kind you just call common as dirt. I always
said if the government would leave me alone, I would sure leave
it alone.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Floyd. But when this biosphere came in, my brother came
and told me about it and I thought that was completely crazy,
but he finally talked me into going to a meeting at Berryville,
and when I got through I was convinced and I decided the
government was not going to leave me alone.
Since we do not have much time here, I am going to skip to
some things that happened today, just one thing. The
feasibility studies that they have to have to get these
biospheres in, I noticed the ones they were giving in Missouri
seemed to be identical to the one they had in Arkansas for our
Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere program. And I just
wonder if they are rubber stamping these or really doing
several different studies.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Is that a question you are posing for the
Committee?
Mr. Floyd. Well, I wondered.
Mrs. Chenoweth. They are; yes, these programs are--no part
of the country is being left untouched.
Mr. Floyd. Well, I would like, since my time has about run,
I would just like to make some kind of statement that of course
I support H.R. 883 and I supported it last time the same bill
came up, and I appreciate your support of it.
And I would like to say this biosphere, the Biosphere
program considering how government programs tend to be is
pretty scary, because you know, they are kind of like the
creeping crud, they always get bigger and nastier.
[Laughter and applause.]
Mr. Floyd. I have got some more to say, but my red light is
on, so I need to thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I wish I did not have that light, I would
love to hear more that you would say. Thank you, Mr. Floyd.
Mr. Williams, would you state your entire name for the
record, in the mic.
STATEMENT OF JUNIOR WILLIAMS
Mr. Williams. I am Junior Williams from Alton, Missouri. I
am Vice President of Ozark Hills and Rivers Landowners
Association and I like the looks of this Committee a lot better
than the last Congressional Committee I testified before. It
was Mr. Seiberling from Ohio was chairing it and it was about
the wilderness in Oregon County and we even brought to their
attention that it did not qualify under their own rules and he
said we will make it qualify and he was not very nice about the
way he said it. And they did make it qualify, we have got a
wilderness area even though we held it up for 10 years.
What I would like to say is these so-called
environmentalists who want to manage our land, they are not
really environmentalists, they do not know how to manage the
land and if they did, they would not want to set it aside.
Management is more than just setting it aside and leaving it
alone, it is using it wisely, and that is what they fail to
see. They want to set it aside. Eleven Point River is a good
example, Irish Wilderness is a good example. There is nothing
no good for anybody.
These agencies, U.S. Forest Service, and all these people
appear to be any more just the tools of environmental groups,
they are no longer servant to the people. And that is a sad
situation.
These environmentalists, I do not believe will ever rest
until they rule every inch of land in the United States under
their control in one manner or the other. They will use any
excuse that they can to get it.
Recently I was just elected to a local school board and
this stuff is getting into our schools with our tax dollars and
they are starting to teach our kids this kind of stuff that is
unscientific and unbased other than just by their emotional
hype and their own personal viewpoints. We hope to start
turning some of that back.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Alford, would you please state your full name for the
record.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT ALFORD
Mr. Alford. My name is Scott Alford. I live here in Phelps
County. My family, we farm out south of town. I am a
transplant. We came into Missouri because you do have a
beautiful state here--and we have it too. And, we are on the
farm because we love the country, and there is nobody that is
going to take better care of the country and of the
environment, than farmers who love it.
With that in mind a couple of statements and then a
question I hope that I can pose to you. First off, this is not
an issue of economics. I appreciate the economic concerns that
a lot of people have had here: the cattlemen, the forestry
industry, the mining industry . . . This is not a concern just
of economics, it is also a concern about freedom. Our
Constitution guarantees us the right to own land and to be
justly compensated for it if there is a public need--not a U.N.
need, but a public need--to have that land taken away. And in
the 10th Amendment as well, we also talk about that any rights
that are not specifically granted to the Federal Government are
reserved for the states and the people. And as Marge Welch said
just a few minutes ago, it does not say anything about those
rights going or going to the Federal Government--or to the U.N.
especially--it says to the people. That is a Constitutional
right.
My question by the way . . . Several people in the audience
asked this, and that is why I came down: this bill, H.R. 883,
is it going to indeed take away the current designations of
World Heritage Sites and other U.N. sites, Biosphere Reserves .
. . that are currently out there? Is that going to take those
away?
Mrs. Chenoweth. They would be taken away if Congress did
not approve of them within two years.
Mr. Alford. Then it has my full support. Thank you very
much.
Mrs. Chenoweth. You are welcome.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. You know, I sat here and listened to the
testimony with absolute amazement and great respect. The fact
is the testimony was given in five minutes and sometimes in one
minute segments and there was more common sense and more wisdom
in what I heard today than quite often I hear inside the
beltway.
[Applause.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. You know, the politicians like to go on and
on and on, they are quite inebriated with the exuberance of
their own verbosity.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And that is why we have a lot of the
trouble that we have. But I would like to encourage not only
those of you who testified and demonstrate such wisdom and such
common sense and such vision for the future and such love for
our American way of live, urge you to not think your tour of
duty is over, but consider running for public office, consider
being part of those who will help bring what your future in
this state will be.
I want to again thank Congressman Emerson for inviting the
Committee in here and thank her staff for all of the good work
that has been done in preparation for this very valuable
hearing.
I do want to remind the witnesses that the record will be
open for 10 working days should you wish to add to your
testimony and the exhibits or any necessary corrections.
And so with that, I want to again thank you very much. Oh,
Kurt reminds me that you need to send any additions to Debbie
Callis at 1324 Longworth Building HOB, Washington, DC 20515.
And if there is no further business, this hearing is
adjourned.
[H.R. 883 and backup material follows:]
[April 27, 1999 letter from Sierra Club follows:]
[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6693.267